Gary Johnson to get Statue?

62 views
Skip to first unread message

Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 15, 2021, 9:48:55 PM9/15/21
to
Hi,

as you may know, Australia has just made an historic deal with the UK and USA to obtain nuclear submarine tech and to build several of them.
The previous French scammers have been pissed off.

This 2 year old vid shows the owner of Jaycar putting the case for doing just that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_QoRDYLym4

IMO Gary was a business rogue, but every dog has his day.



..... Phil

Daniel65

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 6:22:02 AM9/16/21
to
Phil Allison wrote on 16/9/21 11:48 am:
And did you notice how U.S. President Biden referred to our P.M.?? "Our
mate from down there" or some such!! NOT by actual name!!

And, at what I think was a later press conference, one of the U.S.
lackies said that the Pres was refering to Aus P.M. 'Mal Turnie' or some
such!! Opps!! Foot-in-mouth again!!

SURE, we are important on the World Scene!!
--
Daniel

Trevor Wilson

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 4:57:19 PM9/16/21
to
On 16/09/2021 8:22 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Phil Allison wrote on 16/9/21 11:48 am:
>> Hi,
>>
>> as you may know, Australia has just made an historic deal with the UK
>> and USA to obtain nuclear submarine tech and to build several of them.
>> The previous French scammers have been pissed off.
>>
>> This 2 year old vid shows the owner of Jaycar putting the case for
>> doing just that.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_QoRDYLym4
>>
>> IMO Gary was a business rogue,  but every dog has his day.
>>
>>
>>
>> .....  Phil
>>
> And did you notice how U.S. President Biden referred to our P.M.?? "Our
> mate from down there" or some such!! NOT by actual name!!

**Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who is
incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery. We can only hope that
the religious nutter is consigned to history at the next election.

My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS. Too old. HOWEVER, there
was a worse choice for POTUS:

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name

>
> And, at what I think was a later press conference, one of the U.S.
> lackies said that the Pres was refering to Aus P.M. 'Mal Turnie' or some
> such!! Opps!! Foot-in-mouth again!!
>
> SURE, we are important on the World Scene!!

**We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is the most
insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And yes,
that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is worse.

Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 6:10:08 PM9/16/21
to
Trevor Wilson Goes Rabid wrote:
===========================
>
> **Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who is
> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.

** That that describes the TW ratbag quite well.

> My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.

** Massive understatement
** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.

> **We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is the most
> insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And yes,
> that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is worse.


** For the uninformed:

1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two decades.
2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep face.
4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.



...... Phil

Trevor Wilson

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 6:24:35 PM9/16/21
to
On 17/09/2021 8:10 am, Phil Allison wrote:
> Trevor Wilson Goes Rabid wrote:
> ===========================
>>
>> **Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who is
>> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.
>
> ** That that describes the TW ratbag quite well.
>
> > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.
>
> ** Massive understatement
>
> >Too old. HOWEVER, there was a worse choice for POTUS:
>>
>> https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name
>
> ** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.
>
>> **We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is the most
>> insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And yes,
>> that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is worse.
>
>
> ** For the uninformed:
>
> 1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two decades.

**"besotted", "for two decades"? Try FIVE decades. I've been reading
everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since the early 1970s.
It was first postulated by my favourite mathematician, Fourier, back in
the first half of the 19th century. That hypothesis was confirmed by
Arrhenius, before the end of the 19th century. Despite more than 100
years of trying, deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones,
Murdoch, Trump, et al) of AGW theory have been unable to prove Arrhenius
wrong. AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the subject with me, I
am always ready.

> 2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.

**Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both believe that
there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives in the sky and
performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire history of humanity,
has there been any verifiable evidence to show that such a monster
exists, or has ever existed. ANY person who subscribes to such beliefs
is clearly delusional. If you feel that such a monster exists, then you
need to seek psycho-therapy.

> 3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep face.

**"Hate"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable of
doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don't "hate"
them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those morons who kept
them in government.

> 4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
> 5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.

**What "extreme ideas" do you refer to? AGW theory? You're on VERY thin
ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the mean time,
spend a little effort here:

www.ippc.ch

Rod Speed

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 9:33:56 PM9/16/21
to
Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
> Daniel65 wrote
>> Phil Allison wrote

>>> as you may know, Australia has just made an historic deal with the UK
>>> and USA to obtain nuclear submarine tech and to build several of them.
>>> The previous French scammers have been pissed off.
>>>
>>> This 2 year old vid shows the owner of Jaycar putting the case for doing
>>> just that.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_QoRDYLym4
>>>
>>> IMO Gary was a business rogue, but every dog has his day.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ..... Phil
>>>
>> And did you notice how U.S. President Biden referred to our P.M.?? "Our
>> mate from down there" or some such!! NOT by actual name!!

> Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who is
> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.

All Albo can manage is to hang on to his job for now.

> We can only hope that the religious nutter is consigned to history at the
> next election.

Just another of your pathetic little fantasys.

> My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS. Too old.

What matters is his stupid insane spending spree.

> HOWEVER, there was a worse choice for POTUS:

> https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name

>> And, at what I think was a later press conference, one of the U.S.
>> lackies said that the Pres was refering to Aus P.M. 'Mal Turnie' or some
>> such!! Opps!! Foot-in-mouth again!!
>>
>> SURE, we are important on the World Scene!!
>
> We are or were, somewhat strategically important.

Bullshit. We are irrelevant to all but a few pacific islands and even
those have told us to bugger off and mind our own business.

> Our PM is the most insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the
> office. And yes, that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably,
> Scummo is worse.

All of those leave the only real alternatives for dead.

Rod Speed

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 9:57:47 PM9/16/21
to
Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
> Phil Allison wrote
>> Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,
the world worked fine when the romans were growing
grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.

No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.

Trevor Wilson

unread,
Sep 16, 2021, 11:35:48 PM9/16/21
to
**There is no "if". Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for
a very long time. AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally
and observation wise.

> the world worked fine when the romans were growing
> grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
> and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.

**Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe. However, if you think
that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in Victoria is a good thing, then
you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.

>
> No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.

**Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels. There are lots
of viable alternatives.

Rod Speed

unread,
Sep 18, 2021, 6:29:31 PM9/18/21
to
Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
> There is no "if".

Wrong.

> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

> AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation wise.

Easy to claim.

>> the world worked fine when the romans were growing
>> grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
>> and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.

> Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.

The romans didn’t need that.

> However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in Victoria is
> a good thing,

That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
to believe that it would happen now.

> then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.

More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.

>> No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.

> Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.

No point in doing anything that stupid.

> There are lots of viable alternatives.

No need for them.

Trevor Wilson

unread,
Sep 18, 2021, 7:57:31 PM9/18/21
to
**Nope. Correct.

>
>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.
>
> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
> claiming we were seeing global cooling.

**Bullshit. The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were
the imaginative writers of Time Magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of note. It
is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as credible as a
Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.

NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.

As I stated before:

Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
temperatures more than 100 years ago. NOT ONCE, in the intervening
120-odd years, has any credible evidence been put forward to disprove
Arrhenius' theory.

If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like
the one that Arrhenius won.

Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
on the planet is wrong.

>
>> AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation wise.
>
> Easy to claim.

**Of course it's easy to claim. The evidence is utterly and completely
overwhelming.

>
>>> the world worked fine when the romans were growing
>>> grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
>>> and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.
>
>> Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.
>
> The romans didn’t need that.

**In Greenland? First I heard about that. Grapes are grown all over the
place. Including Australia. They've been grown in England for many
hundreds of years. I am unsurprised that the Romans planted grape vines.
They were partial to the odd glass/jug of wine.

>
>> However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
>> Victoria is a good thing,
>
> That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
> to believe that it would happen now.

**"Now"? Nope. In a 100 or so years? As we rapidly approach the
'tipping point', it is absolutely possible.

>
>> then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.
>
> More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.

**Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.

>
>>> No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.
>
>> Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.
>
> No point in doing anything that stupid.

**Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to rise
at a faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past million years.

>
>> There are lots of viable alternatives.
>
> No need for them.

**There's no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels, as
there are viable alternatives.


Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 18, 2021, 8:41:10 PM9/18/21
to
Trevor Wilson is a Raving Lunatic wrote:
==============================
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ** For the uninformed:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
> >>>>> decades.
>>>>
> >>>>> 2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
> >>>> >
> >>>>> 3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep face.
> >>>>
> >>>>> 4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
>>>>>
> >>>>> 5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
> >>>>
>
> > It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>> > claiming we were seeing global cooling.

> **Bullshit. The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were
> the imaginative writers of Time Magazine:
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
>

** Page does not exist, like TW's logic.


> NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.

** Ummm try "Science" in 1971.

BTW: science journals publish rubbish all the time, the entertainment vaule is huge.


> If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like
> the one that Arrhenius won.

** Wasn't Greta Thunberg his grand daughter ??
And her parents both rabid communist nut cases ?

> Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
> on the planet is wrong.

** Here's the truth - there is no such animal as a "climate scientist".
The subject has as much credibility as " astrology ".

Just like astrology, it makes vague predictions based on arbitrary hypotheses - which you can believe in it or not.
Just like astrology, its proponents make a living from it.
Astrologers use star maps and other astronomy data.
Global warmies use computer models and other people's data, cherry picked.

FYI:
Computer modelling is NOT science, just glorified astrology.

Make no mistake - TW IS a 100% raving lunatic.
He rants he raves, he hates and he bullshits.

I seriously doubt he as ever had a single sane thought in his life.



...... Phil



keithr0

unread,
Sep 18, 2021, 9:08:48 PM9/18/21
to
How do you know that it wasn't seen then? The local inhabitants of the
time weren't very good at record keeping.

Trevor Wilson

unread,
Sep 18, 2021, 9:24:39 PM9/18/21
to
**In fairness to Rod, average temperatures are hotter now than at any
time in human history. It is highly unlikely that Victorian Aboriginals
experienced such temperature extremes. That will be our descendants'
futures.

Trevor Wilson

unread,
Sep 19, 2021, 3:24:49 AM9/19/21
to
On 19/09/2021 10:41 am, Phil Allison wrote:
> Trevor Wilson is a Raving Lunatic wrote:
> ==============================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ** For the uninformed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
>>>>>>> decades.
> >>>>
>>>>>>> 2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep face.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
>>>>>>
> >
>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>
>> **Bullshit. The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were
>> the imaginative writers of Time Magazine:
>>
>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
>>
>
> ** Page does not exist, like TW's logic.

**I have no idea why you can't bring the page up. Here's how I located it:

* Go to Wikipedia.
* Then here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
* Go to the references section and click on the link at #36. Entitled:
Science: Another Ice Age?"


>
>
>> NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.
>
> ** Ummm try "Science" in 1971.
>
> BTW: science journals publish rubbish all the time, the entertainment vaule is huge.

**I am only speaking about PEER-REVIEWED science.

>
>
> > If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like
>> the one that Arrhenius won.
>
> ** Wasn't Greta Thunberg his grand daughter ??

**Dunno. Don't care. Thunberg is not a climate scientist. I do not
listen to children, politicians or fools, when it involves climate
science. I listen to climate scientists.

> And her parents both rabid communist nut cases ?

**Dunno. Don't care. See above.

>
> > Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
>> on the planet is wrong.
>
> ** Here's the truth - there is no such animal as a "climate scientist".

**Yeah, no. That's bullshit:

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/geography/undergraduate/careers/climatologist.page

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/climate-science/

https://climateextremes.org.au/how-to-become-a-climate-scientist/

https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/climate-scientist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology

> The subject has as much credibility as " astrology ".

**That would be a lie. Climate science involves a great deal of study.
Astrology requires one to remove one's brain.

>
> Just like astrology, it makes vague predictions based on arbitrary hypotheses - which you can believe in it or not.

**Incorrect. Fourier made the first hypothesis regarding CO2 effects on
the planet's climate. Arrhenius proved Fourier to be correct. At NO time
in the past 120+ years, has Arrhenius' theory been proven incorrect. If
you feel you can prove a Nobel Prize winning chemist (Arrhenius) wrong,
then please do so.


> Just like astrology, its proponents make a living from it.

**Sure do. They make HUGE chunks of money from it. A little less than an
average plumber, in fact.

> Astrologers use star maps and other astronomy data.
> Global warmies use computer models and other people's data, cherry picked.

**Wrong. If you had taken the time to read the IPCC reports, you would
realise just how wrong you are.

>
> FYI:
> Computer modelling is NOT science, just glorified astrology.

**That's your uneducated opinion.

>
> Make no mistake - TW IS a 100% raving lunatic.
> He rants he raves, he hates and he bullshits.
>
> I seriously doubt he as ever had a single sane thought in his life.

**Uh-huh.

Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 19, 2021, 4:15:21 AM9/19/21
to
Trevor Wilson is a Raving Lunatic wrote:
=============================
>
> >> NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.
> >
> > ** Ummm try "Science" in 1971.
> >
> > BTW: science journals publish rubbish all the time, the entertainment value is huge.
>
> **I am only speaking about PEER-REVIEWED science.

** Wrong context -- read what you wrote.

Peer reviewing:
Where one global warmie reviews another's paper - for money.
Gotta trust that.


> > ** Wasn't Greta Thunberg his grand daughter ??
>
> **Dunno. Don't care. Thunberg is not a climate scientist. I do not
> listen to children, politicians or fools, when it involves climate
> science. I listen to climate scientists.

** But there no such people. I told you
Such simple faith is very touching, you know.


> > And her parents both rabid communist nut cases ?
> **Dunno. Don't care. See above.

** Can't see the pattern ??

> > > Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
> >> on the planet is wrong.
> >
> > ** Here's the truth - there is no such animal as a "climate scientist".

> **Yeah, no. That's bullshit:

** Fraid it is a fact.

> > The subject has as much credibility as " astrology ".

> **That would be a lie.

** Fraid it is a fact.

> Climate science involves a great deal of study.

** It's only a study, not an established or credible science.

Unis supply courses for *money*, they are greedy and morally bankrupt.
But you have never been near one, have you ?
Not nearly smart enough to even qualify.

> Astrology requires one to remove one's brain.

** So you see the comparison then ?

> >
> > Just like astrology, it makes vague predictions based on arbitrary hypotheses - which you can believe in it or not.

> **Incorrect. Fourier made the first hypothesis regarding CO2 effects on
> the planet's climate. Arrhenius proved Fourier to be correct.

** No such thing is even possible.

> At NO time in the past 120+ years, has Arrhenius' theory been proven incorrect.

** Many hypotheses are like that and stay that way forever.

> If you feel you can prove a Nobel Prize winning chemist (Arrhenius) wrong,
> then please do so.

** You know Einstein never got one for his "Special Theory of Relativity".
So that must surely be wrong then ?
Cos the Nobel Committee are always right, aren't they ?


> > Just like astrology, its proponents make a living from it.

> **Sure do. They make HUGE chunks of money from it.

** They have or are always looking for grants to keep themselves in work.
Kind of a big motive.

> > Astrologers use star maps and other astronomy data.
> > Global warmies use computer models and other people's data, cherry picked.
>
> **Wrong.

** It's a fact - shame you don't know it.

> > FYI:
> > Computer modelling is NOT science, just glorified astrology.
>
> **That's your uneducated opinion.

** While you have not the slightest idea what real science even is.


> > Make no mistake - TW IS a 100% raving lunatic.
> > He rants he raves, he hates and he bullshits.
> >
> > I seriously doubt he as ever had a single sane thought in his life.

> **Uh-huh.


...... Phil



Rod Speed

unread,
Sep 19, 2021, 3:45:34 PM9/19/21
to
> Nope. Correct.

We'll see...

>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.

>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.

> Bullshit.

Fact.

> The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were the imaginative
> writers of Time Magazine:

Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on about.

> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

> Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of note. It
> is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as credible as a
> Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.

> NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.

Wrong, as always.

> As I stated before:

> Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average temperatures
> more than 100 years ago.

How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
and haven't returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

> NOT ONCE, in the intervening 120-odd years, has any credible evidence been
> put forward to disprove Arrhenius' theory.

What I just stated blows it completely out of the fucking water.

> If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like the
> one that Arrhenius won.

> Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist on
> the planet is wrong.

That claim is pure bullshit.

>>> AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation
>>> wise.

>> Easy to claim.

> Of course it's easy to claim. The evidence is utterly and completely
> overwhelming.

More bullshit with the fact that the average temperatures have
done nothing even remotely like what the CO2 levels have done.

>>>> the world worked fine when the romans were growing
>>>> grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
>>>> and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.
>>
>>> Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.
>>
>> The romans didn’t need that.
>
> In Greenland?

In europe.

> First I heard about that. Grapes are grown all over the place. Including
> Australia. They've been grown in England for many hundreds of years.

But at nothing like the level the romans did in england.

> I am unsurprised that the Romans planted grape vines. They were partial to
> the odd glass/jug of wine.

And the climate in england then made that very viable.

Then it later wasn’t.

>>> However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in Victoria
>>> is a good thing,

>> That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
>> to believe that it would happen now.

> "Now"? Nope. In a 100 or so years? As we rapidly approach the 'tipping
> point',

There is no evidence of any tipping point.

> it is absolutely possible.

How odd that that never happened even when the
CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.

>>> then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.

>> More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.

> Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.

Don’t need to, we didn’t see 60 degree C days when the CO2 levels
were much higher than they are today. Its just your silly straw man.

>>>> No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.

>>> Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.

That shutting down the use of coal and fossil fuels.

>> No point in doing anything that stupid.

> Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to rise at a
> faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past million years.

Pity we didn’t see 60C even when the CO2
levels were much higher than they are now.

>>> There are lots of viable alternatives.

>> No need for them.

> There's no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels, as there
> are viable alternatives.

You stupidly refuse the much more viable alternative, nukes.

Rod Speed

unread,
Sep 19, 2021, 3:50:22 PM9/19/21
to
keithr0 <us...@account.invalid> wrote
Because we would be able to see the effect of that on flaura and fauna.

> The local inhabitants of the time weren't very good at record keeping.

But we know that they didn’t die like flys.

Rod Speed

unread,
Sep 19, 2021, 3:52:20 PM9/19/21
to
Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
> keithr0 wrote
> In fairness to Rod, average temperatures are hotter now than at any time
> in human history.

There is no evidence of that.

> It is highly unlikely that Victorian Aboriginals experienced such
> temperature extremes. That will be our descendants' futures.

Easy to hysterically claim.

Rod Speed

unread,
Sep 19, 2021, 4:02:35 PM9/19/21
to
Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
> Phil Allison wrote
>> Trevor Wilson wrote
>> ==============================
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ** For the uninformed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
>>>>>>>> decades.
>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep face.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
>>>>>>>
>> >
>>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>>
>>> **Bullshit. The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were
>>> the imaginative writers of Time Magazine:
>>>
>>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
>>>
>>
>> Page does not exist, like TW's logic.

> I have no idea why you can't bring the page up.

Doesn’t work in Chrome, Waterfox, Pale Moon or Firefox, all the latest
versions.

> Here's how I located it:

> * Go to Wikipedia.
> * Then here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Which proves that your claim that global cooling
was only ever a Time article is a bare faced lie.

> * Go to the references section and click on the link at #36. Entitled:
> Science: Another Ice Age?"

The internet archive link is down and the original
article link gives the same dud result as your link.

>>> NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.

>> Ummm try "Science" in 1971.

>> BTW: science journals publish rubbish all the time, the
>> entertainment vaule is huge.

> I am only speaking about PEER-REVIEWED science.

Plenty of examples of that in the wiki article.

Trevor Wilson

unread,
Sep 19, 2021, 6:46:46 PM9/19/21
to
**There is no "we'll see'. We are already seeing it.

>
>>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.
>
>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>
>> Bullshit.
>
> Fact.

**Then YOU need to cite where "those same people (who are studying AGW
theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling".

The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

>
>> The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were the
>> imaginative writers of Time Magazine:
>
> Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on about.

**No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

>
>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
>
>> Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of note.
>> It is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as credible as
>> a Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.
>
>>  NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.
>
> Wrong, as always.

**Then present your evidence.

>
>> As I stated before:
>
>> Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
>> temperatures more than 100 years ago.
>
> How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
> the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
> and haven't returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

**What the fuck are you smoking. I don't give a fuck about weather
conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.
You're talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck's sake.
Climatology is concerned with AVERAGE climate conditions on a
planet-wide scale. To put that into perspective, England represents
1/4000th the surface area of this planet. Four fifths of fuck-all.

1.1 degrees C AVERAGE temperature rise is both measurable and significant.

Here is a record of temperatures for the past 2,000 years. Planet-wide,
NOT a minuscule 1/4000th section of the planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

>
>> NOT ONCE, in the intervening 120-odd years, has any credible evidence
>> been put forward to disprove Arrhenius' theory.
>
> What I just stated blows it completely out of the fucking water.

**How? You cite a bunch of drunken Italians planting grapes as evidence
of something?

You're kidding.


>
>> If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like
>> the one that Arrhenius won.
>
>> Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
>> on the planet is wrong.
>
> That claim is pure bullshit.

**Nup. Fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

>
>>>> AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation
>>>> wise.
>
>>> Easy to claim.
>
>> Of course it's easy to claim. The evidence is utterly and completely
>> overwhelming.
>
> More bullshit with the fact that the average temperatures have
> done nothing even remotely like what the CO2 levels have done.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
way it happens, the two events are closely linked.

>
>>>>> the world worked fine when the romans were growing
>>>>> grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
>>>>> and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.
>>>
>>>> Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.
>>>
>>> The romans didn’t need that.
>>
>> In Greenland?
>
> In europe.

**Then stop babbling on about Greenland. I still don't know why you are
babbling on about a bunch of drunken Italians growing grapes in an
insignificant corner of the planet, but I guess it means something to you.

>
>> First I heard about that. Grapes are grown all over the place.
>> Including Australia. They've been grown in England for many hundreds
>> of years.
>
> But at nothing like the level the romans did in england.

**Again: Who gives a fuck what drunken Italians were doing a couple of
thousand years ago in an insignificant corner of the planet?

>
>> I am unsurprised that the Romans planted grape vines. They were
>> partial to the odd glass/jug of wine.
>
> And the climate in england then made that very viable.

**OK.

>
> Then it later wasn’t.

**OK.

Like I said: What happened in an insignificant corner of the planet a
couple of thousand years ago, is irrelevant.

Just throwing it out there, but the possible reason why the Poms stopped
growing grapes, is because the drunken Italians left and the Poms went
back to beer. And, if you've ever tasted Pommy wines, you'll understand
why the Poms drink beer.

>
>>>> However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
>>>> Victoria is a good thing,
>
>>> That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
>>> to believe that it would happen now.
>
>> "Now"? Nope. In  a 100 or so years? As we rapidly approach the
>> 'tipping point',
>
> There is no evidence of any tipping point.

**That's because we have not reached it yet. However, there is evidence
that the tipping point is being approached:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/massive-craters-in-siberia-are-exploding-into-existence-whats-causing-them

As you are no doubt aware, methane is around 20 TIMES more potent as a
GHG than CO2. There are billions of Tonnes of CO2 in permafrost regions.
As the methane is released, then greenhouse effects will increase. This
will lead to more warming and more methane release. Allied with this,
will be the release of CO2 from the oceans, as the oceans warm further.
At some point, the effect will be impossible to reverse. Then we will be
fucked.

>
>> it is absolutely possible.
>
> How odd that that never happened even when the
> CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.

**You really have done zero research, haven't you? NOT ONE TEENY TINY
BIT. Look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

CO2 levels were estimated to be thousands of ppm 50 million years ago.

>
>>>> then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.
>
>>> More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.
>
>> Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.
>
> Don’t need to, we didn’t see 60 degree C days when the CO2 levels
> were much higher than they are today. Its just your silly straw man.

**Actually, that is bullshit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

I hasten to add that no human was alive when CO2 levels and temps were
that high.

>
>>>>> No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.
>
>>>> Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.
>
> That shutting down the use of coal and fossil fuels.
>
>>> No point in doing anything that stupid.
>
>> Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to rise
>> at a faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past million years.
>
> Pity we didn’t see 60C even when the CO2
> levels were much higher than they are now.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

That said, it is correct to say that CO2 levels are higher today than at
any time in (at least) the past million years. Same with temperatures.

>
>>>> There are lots of viable alternatives.
>
>>> No need for them.
>
>> There's no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels, as
>> there are viable alternatives.
>
> You stupidly refuse the much more viable alternative, nukes.

**IF the morons running this country decided TODAY, to build a nuke, it
would not be generating power for 20 years. In 20 years, we could fill a
tiny corner of SA, WA and NT with solar PV and generate enough power to
satisfy the entire planet's needs for electricity. We could be an energy
exporter. Fortunately, we have some forward thinking entrepreneurs in
this country:

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/northern-territory-to-become-home-to-the-worlds-largest-solar-farm/

Trevor Wilson

unread,
Sep 19, 2021, 6:53:39 PM9/19/21
to
**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Common_Era_Temperature.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:20200324_Global_average_temperature_-_NASA-GISS_HadCrut_NOAA_Japan_BerkeleyE.svg



>
>> It is highly unlikely that Victorian Aboriginals experienced such
>> temperature extremes. That will be our descendants' futures.
>
> Easy to hysterically claim.

**Nope. It's all about the science. You know, the stuff you don't
understand and ignore.

Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 19, 2021, 7:27:13 PM9/19/21
to
Trevor Wilson Rabid Lunatic wrote:
============================
>
> >>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.
> >
> >>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
> >>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
> >
> >> Bullshit.
> >
> > Fact.
> **Then YOU need to cite where "those same people (who are studying AGW
> theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling".
>
> The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

** " Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time. "

Those "guys" were aka " climate alarmists ".


> >> The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were the
> >> imaginative writers of Time Magazine:
> >
> > Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on about.

> **No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

** Its not a women's mag either, so what.

> > How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
> > the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
> > and haven't returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

> **What the fuck are you smoking. I don't give a fuck about weather
> conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.
> You're talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck's sake.

** Errr - the "Roman Warm Period" covered the whole of Europe and lasted 650 years.
Google it.


> Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
> temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
> Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
> way it happens, the two events are closely linked.

** It proves the EXACT opposite !!

Causes *cannot* come along after the effect.
======================================


..... Phil

Trevor Wilson

unread,
Sep 19, 2021, 8:06:58 PM9/19/21
to
On 20/09/2021 9:27 am, Phil Allison wrote:
> Trevor Wilson Rabid Lunatic wrote:
> ============================
>>
>>>>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.
>>>
>>>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> Fact.
>> **Then YOU need to cite where "those same people (who are studying AGW
>> theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling".
>>
>> The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.
>
> ** " Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time. "
>
> Those "guys" were aka " climate alarmists ".

**If you meant to say: Highly qualified climate SCIENTISTS, then I
agree. The first one was Arrhenius. His proof that CO2 was a cause of
warming has never been challenged successfully. Not once, not ever. If
you and Rod think you can, then have at it.

>
>
>>>> The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were the
>>>> imaginative writers of Time Magazine:
>>>
>>> Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on about.
>
>> **No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.
>
> ** Its not a women's mag either, so what.

**Time Magazine was the one that published the bogus 'global cooling'
nonsense.

>
>>> How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
>>> the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
>>> and haven't returned to what the romans saw in england etc.
>
>> **What the fuck are you smoking. I don't give a fuck about weather
>> conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.
>> You're talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck's sake.
>
> ** Errr - the "Roman Warm Period" covered the whole of Europe and lasted 650 years.
> Google it.

**Again: LOCAL climate variations are not significant. Europe is local.
England, more so. More importantly, scientists are uncertain of the
causes of such a localised climate variation. OTOH, climate scientists
KNOW why the planet has warmed since the start of the industrial
revolution. Fourier supplied the hypothesis. Arrhenius developed a
credible theory, which has never been challenged.

>
>
>> Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
>> temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
>> Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
>> way it happens, the two events are closely linked.
>
> ** It proves the EXACT opposite !!
>
> Causes *cannot* come along after the effect.
> ======================================

**Here's the thing:

Sometimes temperatures on this planet have risen for various reasons.
Increasing Solar flux, for instance. Sometimes temperatures have risen
due to increases in GHGs. When CO2 levels rise, temperatures follow.
Always. When temperatures rise, CO2 levels follow. Always.

Right now and for the past couple of centuries, we have witnessed a
rapid rise in CO2 levels. Temperature rise has followed. As temperatures
rise still further, we will witness a rise in CO2 outgassing from the
oceans (as they, too, warm). No mystery there. We are also witnessing a
rapid increase in methane from permafrost regions as they warm. The
methane release is VERY serious, as methane is roughly 20 times more
potent a GHG than CO2. Fortunately, methane does not last as long as CO2
in the atmosphere (roughly 20 years vs. 1,000 years), but there is a
large amount buried.

So, it kinda goes like this:

CO2 rise > temperature rise
Temperature rise > CO2 levels rise
CO2 rise > temperature rise
Temperature rise > methane levels AND CO2 levels rise
Methane and CO2 rise > temperature rise.

The positive feedback effects continue.


Rod Speed

unread,
Sep 19, 2021, 8:07:05 PM9/19/21
to
> There is no "we'll see'. We are already seeing it.

No we are not with your hysterical claim about 60C

We haven't even seen england returning to the
climate that was there when the romans were
there and clearly civilisation survived that fine.

>>>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.
>>
>>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>
>> Fact.
>
> Then YOU need to cite where "those same people (who are studying AGW
> theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling".
>
> The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

>>> The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were the
>>> imaginative writers of Time Magazine:
>>
>> Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on
>> about.

> No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

There was in fact a hell of a lot more claiming that than one time article.
It was in fact just reporting on what they were claiming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

>>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
>>
>>> Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of note. It
>>> is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as credible as a
>>> Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.
>>
>>> NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.
>>
>> Wrong, as always.
>
> Then present your evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

>>> As I stated before:

>>> Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
>>> temperatures more than 100 years ago.
>>
>> How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
>> the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
>> and haven't returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

> What the fuck are you smoking. I don't give a fuck about weather
> conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.

It wasn’t just there or in greenland.

> You're talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck's sake.
> Climatology is concerned with AVERAGE climate conditions on a planet-wide
> scale. To put that into perspective, England represents 1/4000th the
> surface area of this planet. Four fifths of fuck-all.
>
> 1.1 degrees C AVERAGE temperature rise is both measurable and significant.

Pity it was more than that when the romans were in england and the
vikings in greenland.

> Here is a record of temperatures for the past 2,000 years.

Pity about before that.

> Planet-wide, NOT a minuscule 1/4000th section of the planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

>>> NOT ONCE, in the intervening 120-odd years, has any credible evidence
>>> been put forward to disprove Arrhenius' theory.
>>
>> What I just stated blows it completely out of the fucking water.
>
> **How? You cite a bunch of drunken Italians planting grapes as evidence of
> something?
>
> You're kidding.

Keep this shit up and you will be ignored.

>>> If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like
>>> the one that Arrhenius won.
>>
>>> Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
>>> on the planet is wrong.
>>
>> That claim is pure bullshit.
>
> Nup. Fact:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

Pity about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

>>>>> AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation
>>>>> wise.
>>
>>>> Easy to claim.
>>
>>> Of course it's easy to claim. The evidence is utterly and completely
>>> overwhelming.
>>
>> More bullshit with the fact that the average temperatures have
>> done nothing even remotely like what the CO2 levels have done.
>
> **Wrong:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
>
> Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise, temperatures
> rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Not true about the time when its was well over 600ppm

> Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever way
> it happens, the two events are closely linked.
>
>>
>>>>>> the world worked fine when the romans were growing
>>>>>> grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
>>>>>> and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.
>>>>
>>>>> Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.
>>>>
>>>> The romans didn’t need that.
>>>
>>> In Greenland?
>>
>> In europe.
>
> Then stop babbling on about Greenland. I still don't know why you are
> babbling on about a bunch of drunken Italians growing grapes in an
> insignificant corner of the planet, but I guess it means something to you.

It’s the evidence that average temps were much higher then
and we survived that fine.

>>
>>> First I heard about that. Grapes are grown all over the place. Including
>>> Australia. They've been grown in England for many hundreds of years.
>>
>> But at nothing like the level the romans did in england.
>
> **Again: Who gives a fuck what drunken Italians were doing a couple of
> thousand years ago in an insignificant corner of the planet?
>
>>
>>> I am unsurprised that the Romans planted grape vines. They were partial
>>> to the odd glass/jug of wine.
>>
>> And the climate in england then made that very viable.
>
> **OK.
>
>>
>> Then it later wasn’t.
>
> **OK.
>
> Like I said: What happened in an insignificant corner of the planet a
> couple of thousand years ago, is irrelevant.

Not when it’s the evidence of much warmer global temps than now.

> Just throwing it out there, but the possible reason why the Poms stopped
> growing grapes, is because the drunken Italians left and the Poms went
> back to beer. And, if you've ever tasted Pommy wines, you'll understand
> why the Poms drink beer.

Because the climate there is much cooler now than when the romans were
there.

>>>>> However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
>>>>> Victoria is a good thing,
>>
>>>> That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
>>>> to believe that it would happen now.
>>
>>> "Now"? Nope. In a 100 or so years? As we rapidly approach the 'tipping
>>> point',
>>
>> There is no evidence of any tipping point.
>
> That's because we have not reached it yet.

But no evidence that there is any tipping point given that
that wasn’t see when the romans were growing much
better wine in england than is possible now and the
vikings were growing much more in greenland than
is possible now.

> However, there is evidence that the tipping point is being approached:

Bullshit there is.

> https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/massive-craters-in-siberia-are-exploding-into-existence-whats-causing-them

How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

> As you are no doubt aware, methane is around 20 TIMES more potent as a GHG
> than CO2. There are billions of Tonnes of CO2 in permafrost regions. As
> the methane is released, then greenhouse effects will increase. This will
> lead to more warming and more methane release. Allied with this, will be
> the release of CO2 from the oceans, as the oceans warm further. At some
> point, the effect will be impossible to reverse. Then we will be fucked.

How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now


>>> it is absolutely possible.
>>
>> How odd that that never happened even when the
>> CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.

> You really have done zero research, haven't you? NOT ONE TEENY TINY BIT.
> Look at this:

Don’t need to, that’s what I had researched.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
>
> CO2 levels were estimated to be thousands of ppm 50 million years ago.

What I was referring to.

>>>>> then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.
>>
>>>> More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.
>>
>>> Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.
>>
>> Don’t need to, we didn’t see 60 degree C days when the CO2 levels
>> were much higher than they are today. Its just your silly straw man.
>
> Actually, that is bullshit:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
>
> I hasten to add that no human was alive when CO2 levels and temps were
> that high.

But plenty of flora and fauna were when the CO2 level was
twice what it is now.

>>>>>> No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.
>>
>>>>> Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.
>>
>> That shutting down the use of coal and fossil fuels.
>>
>>>> No point in doing anything that stupid.
>>
>>> Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to rise at
>>> a faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past million years.
>>
>> Pity we didn’t see 60C even when the CO2
>> levels were much higher than they are now.
>
> Wrong:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

> That said, it is correct to say that CO2 levels are higher today than at
> any time in (at least) the past million years. Same with temperatures.

Pity that there was plenty of flora and fauna around well before that.

>>>>> There are lots of viable alternatives.
>>
>>>> No need for them.
>>
>>> There's no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels, as
>>> there are viable alternatives.
>>
>> You stupidly refuse the much more viable alternative, nukes.

> IF the morons running this country decided TODAY, to build a nuke, it
> would not be generating power for 20 years.

That’s bullshit, the chinese build them much quicker than that.

> In 20 years, we could fill a tiny corner of SA, WA and NT with solar PV
> and generate enough power to satisfy the entire planet's needs for
> electricity.

But no viable way of getting it to the rest of the world.

> We could be an energy exporter.

Not even to singapore, makes much more
sense to have more nukes there instead.

> Fortunately, we have some forward thinking entrepreneurs in this country:
>
> https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/northern-territory-to-become-home-to-the-worlds-largest-solar-farm/

Taint gunna happen, you watch.


Trevor Wilson

unread,
Sep 19, 2021, 9:49:52 PM9/19/21
to
**"WE" won't see 60 degree C heatwave days, but those who come after us
will.

>
> We haven't even seen england returning to the
> climate that was there when the romans were
> there and clearly civilisation survived that fine.

**Are you STILL blathering on about a bunch of drunken Italians, in an
insignificant corner of the planet?

>
>>>>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.
>>>
>>>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> Fact.
>>
>> Then YOU need to cite where "those same people (who are studying AGW
>> theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling".
>>
>> The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

**The first para from YOUR cite:

"Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of
imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive
glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing.
Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;
these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time,
which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
greenhouse effect.[1]"

'Global cooling' was bullshit then and it is bullshit now. Since
Arrhenius proved the connection between CO2 and rising temperatures, no
climate scientist has bought into your bullshit.

>
>>>> The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were the
>>>> imaginative writers of Time Magazine:
>>>
>>> Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on
>>> about.
>
>> No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.
>
> There was in fact a hell of a lot more claiming that than one time article.
> It was in fact just reporting on what they were claiming.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

**Who is "they"?

A bunch of idiots? Not interested in what idiots think about AGW.

>
>>>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
>>>
>>>> Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of
>>>> note. It is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as
>>>> credible as a Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.
>>>
>>>>  NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>> Then present your evidence.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

**The first para:

"Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of
imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive
glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing.
Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;
these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time,
which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
greenhouse effect.[1]"

>
>>>> As I stated before:
>
>>>> Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
>>>> temperatures more than 100 years ago.
>>>
>>> How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
>>> the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
>>> and haven't returned to what the romans saw in england etc.
>
>> What the fuck are you smoking. I don't give a fuck about weather
>> conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.
>
> It wasn’t just there or in greenland.

**And yet, you blather on about a bunch of drunken Italians in England.

>
>> You're talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck's
>> sake. Climatology is concerned with AVERAGE climate conditions on a
>> planet-wide scale. To put that into perspective, England represents
>> 1/4000th the surface area of this planet. Four fifths of fuck-all.
>>
>> 1.1 degrees C AVERAGE temperature rise is both measurable and
>> significant.
>
> Pity it was more than that when the romans were in england and the
> vikings in greenland.

**Again: Local climate effects are not the issue. Planet-wide climate is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000."

Our climate is warmer today, than it was in 2000. Therefore, the
temporary, local warming back then, was cooler than it is today.


>
>> Here is a record of temperatures for the past 2,000 years.
>
> Pity about before that.
>
>> Planet-wide, NOT a minuscule 1/4000th section of the planet.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg


>
>
>>>> NOT ONCE, in the intervening 120-odd years, has any credible
>>>> evidence been put forward to disprove Arrhenius' theory.
>>>
>>> What I just stated blows it completely out of the fucking water.
>>
>> **How? You cite a bunch of drunken Italians planting grapes as
>> evidence of something?
>>
>> You're kidding.
>
> Keep this shit up and you will be ignored.

**Oh dear. You have me scared now.

>
>>>> If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize,
>>>> like the one that Arrhenius won.
>>>
>>>> Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate
>>>> scientist on the planet is wrong.
>>>
>>> That claim is pure bullshit.
>>
>> Nup. Fact:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
>
> Pity about
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

**The first para:

"Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of
imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive
glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing.
Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;
these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time,
which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
greenhouse effect.[1]"

Conjecture:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conjecture

"the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient
evidence for proof.
an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
Obsolete. the interpretation of signs or omens.
verb (used with object), con·jec·tured, con·jec·tur·ing.
to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure
reliability.
verb (used without object), con·jec·tured, con·jec·tur·ing.
to form conjectures."


>
>>>>>> AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and
>>>>>> observation wise.
>>>
>>>>> Easy to claim.
>>>
>>>> Of course it's easy to claim. The evidence is utterly and completely
>>>> overwhelming.
>>>
>>> More bullshit with the fact that the average temperatures have
>>> done nothing even remotely like what the CO2 levels have done.
>>
>> **Wrong:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
>>
>>
>> Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
>> temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
>
> Not true about the time when its was well over 600ppm

**OK. When did that occur?
What was the average temperature of the planet when CO2 levels were that
high?

Cite please.


>
>> Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
>> way it happens, the two events are closely linked.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>> the world worked fine when the romans were growing
>>>>>>> grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
>>>>>>> and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.
>>>>>
>>>>> The romans didn’t need that.
>>>>
>>>> In Greenland?
>>>
>>> In europe.
>>
>> Then stop babbling on about Greenland. I still don't know why you are
>> babbling on about a bunch of drunken Italians growing grapes in an
>> insignificant corner of the planet, but I guess it means something to
>> you.
>
> It’s the evidence that average temps were much higher then
> and we survived that fine.

**It's evidence that average temps were somewhat COOLER than they were
today.

>
>>>
>>>> First I heard about that. Grapes are grown all over the place.
>>>> Including Australia. They've been grown in England for many hundreds
>>>> of years.
>>>
>>> But at nothing like the level the romans did in england.
>>
>> **Again: Who gives a fuck what drunken Italians were doing a couple of
>> thousand years ago in an insignificant corner of the planet?
>>
>>>
>>>> I am unsurprised that the Romans planted grape vines. They were
>>>> partial to the odd glass/jug of wine.
>>>
>>> And the climate in england then made that very viable.
>>
>> **OK.
>>
>>>
>>> Then it later wasn’t.
>>
>> **OK.
>>
>> Like I said: What happened in an insignificant corner of the planet a
>> couple of thousand years ago, is irrelevant.
>
> Not when it’s the evidence of much warmer global temps than now.

**Incorrect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000."

>
>> Just throwing it out there, but the possible reason why the Poms
>> stopped growing grapes, is because the drunken Italians left and the
>> Poms went back to beer. And, if you've ever tasted Pommy wines, you'll
>> understand why the Poms drink beer.
>
> Because the climate there is much cooler now than when the romans were
> there.

**Incorrect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000."


>
>>>>>> However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
>>>>>> Victoria is a good thing,
>>>
>>>>> That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
>>>>> to believe that it would happen now.
>>>
>>>> "Now"? Nope. In  a 100 or so years? As we rapidly approach the
>>>> 'tipping point',
>>>
>>> There is no evidence of any tipping point.
>>
>> That's because we have not reached it yet.
>
> But no evidence that there is any tipping point given that
> that wasn’t see when the romans were growing much
> better wine in england than is possible now and the
> vikings were growing much more in greenland than
> is possible now.

**That's because CO2 was not responsible for the temporary warming
experienced back when the drunken Italians were wandering around Europe.
It is not known with any precision why the warming occurred back then.

>
>> However, there is evidence that the tipping point is being approached:
>
> Bullshit there is.

**OK. You tell me:

What magical mechanism exists to cause the present warming to cease?

Take as much time and space as you need to respond.

>
>> https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/massive-craters-in-siberia-are-exploding-into-existence-whats-causing-them
>>
>
> How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
> much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
> were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

**The Poms are good at beer and crap at wine. It's a cultural thing, not
a climate thing. The drunken Italians prefer their own particular crap
wine. The French, Aussies and Americans are best at making decent wine.
Sometimes the Germans do a good drop. And the Kiwis. The Poms? Nup. Never.


>
>> As you are no doubt aware, methane is around 20 TIMES more potent as a
>> GHG than CO2. There are billions of Tonnes of CO2 in permafrost
>> regions. As the methane is released, then greenhouse effects will
>> increase. This will lead to more warming and more methane release.
>> Allied with this, will be the release of CO2 from the oceans, as the
>> oceans warm further. At some point, the effect will be impossible to
>> reverse. Then we will be fucked.
>
> How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
> much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
> were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

**And once more: A LOCALISED climate change is not a planet-wide one.

>
>
>>>> it is absolutely possible.
>>>
>>> How odd that that never happened even when the
>>> CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.
>
>> You really have done zero research, haven't you? NOT ONE TEENY TINY
>> BIT. Look at this:
>
> Don’t need to, that’s what I had researched.

**You not only have to research more, but you need to read your own
damned cites.

>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
>>
>>
>> CO2 levels were estimated to be thousands of ppm 50 million years ago.
>
> What I was referring to.

**Points:

* Humans didn't exist back then.
* It was MUCH hotter back then.

>
>>>>>> then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.
>>>
>>>>> More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.
>>>
>>>> Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.
>>>
>>> Don’t need to, we didn’t see 60 degree C days when the CO2 levels
>>> were much higher than they are today. Its just your silly straw man.
>>
>> Actually, that is bullshit:
>
> Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

**Cite.

>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
>>
>> I hasten to add that no human was alive when CO2 levels and temps were
>> that high.
>
> But plenty of flora and fauna were when the CO2 level was
> twice what it is now.

**And it was MUCH hotter. Tell me: How long would it take for humans to
evolve to deal with temperatures that high? How long would it take to
develop crops and animals to survive those temps?

>
>>>>>>> No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.
>>>
>>>>>> Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.
>>>
>>> That shutting down the use of coal and fossil fuels.
>>>
>>>>> No point in doing anything that stupid.
>>>
>>>> Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to
>>>> rise at a faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past
>>>> million years.
>>>
>>> Pity we didn’t see 60C even when the CO2
>>> levels were much higher than they are now.
>>
>> Wrong:
>
> Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

**Cite.

>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
>
>> That said, it is correct to say that CO2 levels are higher today than
>> at any time in (at least) the past million years. Same with temperatures.
>
> Pity that there was plenty of flora and fauna around well before that.

**Could humans eat it? Could we survive such temperatures?

>
>>>>>> There are lots of viable alternatives.
>>>
>>>>> No need for them.
>>>
>>>> There's no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels, as
>>>> there are viable alternatives.
>>>
>>> You stupidly refuse the much more viable alternative, nukes.
>
>> IF the morons running this country decided TODAY, to build a nuke, it
>> would not be generating power for 20 years.
>
> That’s bullshit, the chinese build them much quicker than that.

**Points:

* We are not likely to buy a Chinese reactor anytime soon.
* Would you trust a Chinese reactor?

>
>> In 20 years, we could fill a tiny corner of SA, WA and NT with solar
>> PV and generate enough power to satisfy the entire planet's needs for
>> electricity.
>
> But no viable way of getting it to the rest of the world.

**Utter bullshit. We can:

* Use HVDC cable to the coast.
* Send power via undersea HVDC cable.
* Convert electricity to H2 and freight it to all over the joint.

However, my point was a thought experiment (mostly), since we have no
politicians in this country capable of independent thought, nor
scientific knowledge and they can't think past the next election anyway.
However, we do have a couple of entrepreneurs who want to make a
difference.



>
>> We could be an energy exporter.
>
> Not even to singapore, makes much more
> sense to have more nukes there instead.

**We'll see:

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/monster-solar-farm-backed-by-atlassian-founder-about-to-get-significantly-bigger-20210820-p58kpm.html

>
>> Fortunately, we have some forward thinking entrepreneurs in this country:
>>
>> https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/northern-territory-to-become-home-to-the-worlds-largest-solar-farm/
>>
>
> Taint gunna happen, you watch.

**We'll see.


Rod Speed

unread,
Sep 19, 2021, 11:20:47 PM9/19/21
to
That remains to be seen given that they weren't
seen when we last saw CO2 levels of 600 ppm.

>> We haven't even seen england returning to the
>> climate that was there when the romans were
>> there and clearly civilisation survived that fine.
>
> Are you STILL blathering on about a bunch of drunken Italians, in an
> insignificant corner of the planet?

That wasn’t just an isolated example of local climate
change, neither were the ice ages or greenland when
the vikings chose to colonise there.

>>>>>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long
>>>>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>>>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> Fact.
>>>
>>> Then YOU need to cite where "those same people (who are studying AGW
>>> theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling".
>>>
>>> The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

> The first para from YOUR cite:

> "Global cooling was a conjecture,

So is AGW

> especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling

It wasn’t just about imminent, some or the scientists
stated that we had actually seen cooling since 1940
and that that was continuing.

> of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation,

Just like your hysterical claims about 60C temps.

> due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing. Some press
> reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;

Not just press reports, by the scientists of the day too.

> these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time,
> which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
> greenhouse effect.[1]"

Plenty of scientists said that too, it wasn’t just the press.

> 'Global cooling' was bullshit then and it is bullshit now.

That remains to be seen too. We do know
that we do get ice ages periodically.

> Since Arrhenius proved the connection between CO2 and rising temperatures,

But couldn’t explain why we didn’t see anything
special average temperature wise when the CO2
level was over 600ppm.

> no climate scientist has bought into your bullshit.

It isn't my bullshit and hardly any climate scientist is
actually stupid enough to run your line about 60C

>>>>> The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were the
>>>>> imaginative writers of Time Magazine:

>>>> Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on
>>>> about.

>>> No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

>> There was in fact a hell of a lot more claiming that than one time
>> article.
>> It was in fact just reporting on what they were claiming.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
>
> Who is "they"?

The scientists of the day. including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
(NAS)

> A bunch of idiots? Not interested in what idiots think about AGW.

Having fun thrashing yet another straw man ?

>>>>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
>>>>
>>>>> Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of note.
>>>>> It is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as credible as
>>>>> a Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.
>>>>
>>>>> NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>
>>> Then present your evidence.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

>>>>> As I stated before:
>>
>>>>> Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
>>>>> temperatures more than 100 years ago.
>>>>
>>>> How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
>>>> the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
>>>> and haven't returned to what the romans saw in england etc.
>>
>>> What the fuck are you smoking. I don't give a fuck about weather
>>> conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.
>>
>> It wasn’t just there or in greenland.
>
> And yet, you blather on about a bunch of drunken Italians in England.

Because that is the evidence of significantly higher temperatures
than now which not only didn’t produce any tipping point, actually
improved things for civilisation at that time and we didn’t see any
60C heatwaves or the decimation of all flora and fauna either.

>>> You're talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck's sake.
>>> Climatology is concerned with AVERAGE climate conditions on a
>>> planet-wide scale. To put that into perspective, England represents
>>> 1/4000th the surface area of this planet. Four fifths of fuck-all.
>>>
>>> 1.1 degrees C AVERAGE temperature rise is both measurable and
>>> significant.
>>
>> Pity it was more than that when the romans were in england and the
>> vikings in greenland.
>
> **Again: Local climate effects are not the issue. Planet-wide climate is:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
>
> "That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
> climate was basically the same then as around 2000."

> Our climate is warmer today, than it was in 2000.

Climate varys, that’s no news.

> Therefore, the temporary, local warming back then, was cooler than it is
> today.

Not in england.

>>> Here is a record of temperatures for the past 2,000 years.
>>
>> Pity about before that.
>>
>>> Planet-wide, NOT a minuscule 1/4000th section of the planet.

More of your flagrant dishonesty given that

The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a
period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

>>>>> NOT ONCE, in the intervening 120-odd years, has any credible evidence
>>>>> been put forward to disprove Arrhenius' theory.
>>>>
>>>> What I just stated blows it completely out of the fucking water.
>>>
>>> **How? You cite a bunch of drunken Italians planting grapes as evidence
>>> of something?
>>>
>>> You're kidding.
>>
>> Keep this shit up and you will be ignored.
>
> **Oh dear. You have me scared now.
>
>>
>>>>> If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like
>>>>> the one that Arrhenius won.
>>>>
>>>>> Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
>>>>> on the planet is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> That claim is pure bullshit.
>>>
>>> Nup. Fact:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
>>
>> Pity about
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Not in the roman warm period they weren't.
Pity about

The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a
period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic

>>>>>>> However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
>>>>>>> Victoria is a good thing,
>>>>
>>>>>> That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
>>>>>> to believe that it would happen now.
>>>>
>>>>> "Now"? Nope. In a 100 or so years? As we rapidly approach the
>>>>> 'tipping point',
>>>>
>>>> There is no evidence of any tipping point.
>>>
>>> That's because we have not reached it yet.
>>
>> But no evidence that there is any tipping point given that
>> that wasn’t see when the romans were growing much
>> better wine in england than is possible now and the
>> vikings were growing much more in greenland than
>> is possible now.
>
> **That's because CO2 was not responsible for the temporary warming
> experienced back when the drunken Italians were wandering around Europe.
> It is not known with any precision why the warming occurred back then.

Corse it is, climate varys, stupid. We even have ice ages and little ice
ages at times.

>>> However, there is evidence that the tipping point is being approached:
>>
>> Bullshit there is.
>
> **OK. You tell me:
>
> What magical mechanism exists to cause the present warming to cease?

Same one that produces ice ages and little ice ages
and what produced the signicant drop in temps
post 1940, natural variation in world climate.

> Take as much time and space as you need to respond.
>
>>
>>> https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/massive-craters-in-siberia-are-exploding-into-existence-whats-causing-them
>>
>> How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
>> much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
>> were growing much more in greenland than is possible now
>
> **The Poms are good at beer and crap at wine. It's a cultural thing, not a
> climate thing. The drunken Italians prefer their own particular crap wine.
> The French, Aussies and Americans are best at making decent wine.
> Sometimes the Germans do a good drop. And the Kiwis. The Poms? Nup. Never.

They did during the roman warm period.

>>> As you are no doubt aware, methane is around 20 TIMES more potent as a
>>> GHG than CO2. There are billions of Tonnes of CO2 in permafrost regions.
>>> As the methane is released, then greenhouse effects will increase. This
>>> will lead to more warming and more methane release. Allied with this,
>>> will be the release of CO2 from the oceans, as the oceans warm further.
>>> At some point, the effect will be impossible to reverse. Then we will be
>>> fucked.
>>
>> How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
>> much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
>> were growing much more in greenland than is possible now
>
> **And once more: A LOCALISED climate change

It wasn’t.

The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a
period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic

> is not a planet-wide one.

The change in climate seen lately isn't either.

>>>>> it is absolutely possible.
>>>>
>>>> How odd that that never happened even when the
>>>> CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.
>>
>>> You really have done zero research, haven't you? NOT ONE TEENY TINY BIT.
>>> Look at this:
>>
>> Don’t need to, that’s what I had researched.
>
> You not only have to research more, but you need to read your own damned
> cites.

You in spades with the roman warm period and global cooling.

>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
>>>
>>> CO2 levels were estimated to be thousands of ppm 50 million years ago.
>>
>> What I was referring to.
>
> **Points:
>
> * Humans didn't exist back then.

Irrelevant. Clearly that was natural variation in climate.

> * It was MUCH hotter back then.

But didn’t see no flora and fauna as you hysterically claimed.

>>>>>>> then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.
>>>>
>>>>>> More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.
>>>>
>>>>> Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.
>>>>
>>>> Don’t need to, we didn’t see 60 degree C days when the CO2 levels
>>>> were much higher than they are today. Its just your silly straw man.
>>>
>>> Actually, that is bullshit:
>>
>> Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm
>
> **Cite.
>
>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
>>>
>>> I hasten to add that no human was alive when CO2 levels and temps were
>>> that high.
>>
>> But plenty of flora and fauna were when the CO2 level was
>> twice what it is now.
>
> **And it was MUCH hotter. Tell me: How long would it take for humans to
> evolve to deal with temperatures that high?

They don’t need to, we have invented funky stuff like air conditioning.

> How long would it take to develop crops and animals to survive those
> temps?

Again, they survived fine when it was much hotter than it is now.

>>>>>>>> No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.
>>>>
>>>> That shutting down the use of coal and fossil fuels.
>>>>
>>>>>> No point in doing anything that stupid.
>>>>
>>>>> Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to rise
>>>>> at a faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past million
>>>>> years.
>>>>
>>>> Pity we didn’t see 60C even when the CO2
>>>> levels were much higher than they are now.
>>>
>>> Wrong:
>>
>> Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm
>
> **Cite.
>
>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
>>
>>> That said, it is correct to say that CO2 levels are higher today than at
>>> any time in (at least) the past million years. Same with temperatures.
>>
>> Pity that there was plenty of flora and fauna around well before that.
>
> **Could humans eat it?

Obviously the fauna could.

> Could we survive such temperatures?

Corse we could given that we have invented air conditioning.

>>>>>>> There are lots of viable alternatives.
>>>>
>>>>>> No need for them.
>>>>
>>>>> There's no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels, as
>>>>> there are viable alternatives.
>>>>
>>>> You stupidly refuse the much more viable alternative, nukes.
>>
>>> IF the morons running this country decided TODAY, to build a nuke, it
>>> would not be generating power for 20 years.
>>
>> That’s bullshit, the chinese build them much quicker than that.
>
> **Points:
>
> * We are not likely to buy a Chinese reactor anytime soon.

But that shows it can be done.

> * Would you trust a Chinese reactor?

Irrelevant, that shows that its perfectly possible.

>>> In 20 years, we could fill a tiny corner of SA, WA and NT with solar PV
>>> and generate enough power to satisfy the entire planet's needs for
>>> electricity.
>>
>> But no viable way of getting it to the rest of the world.
>
> **Utter bullshit. We can:
>
> * Use HVDC cable to the coast.
> * Send power via undersea HVDC cable.

Doesn’t work to supply the entire world.

> * Convert electricity to H2 and freight it to all over the joint.

Stupid way to do things instead of using nukes where the power is needed.

> However, my point was a thought experiment (mostly), since we have no
> politicians in this country capable of independent thought,

Politicians are irrelevant to stuff like that. They
didn’t produce planes, ships, cars, etc etc etc.

> nor scientific knowledge and they can't think past the next election
> anyway. However, we do have a couple of entrepreneurs who want to make a
> difference.

Who wont in fact do anything of the sort that way.

>
>
>>
>>> We could be an energy exporter.
>>
>> Not even to singapore, makes much more
>> sense to have more nukes there instead.

> **We'll see:

It flop, just like the stupid tidal power systems all have.

Trevor Wilson

unread,
Sep 20, 2021, 12:11:39 AM9/20/21
to
**I will ask again:

* When were CO2 levels at 600ppm?
* What was the average temperature of the planet?
* Cite.

>
>>> We haven't even seen england returning to the
>>> climate that was there when the romans were
>>> there and clearly civilisation survived that fine.
>>
>> Are you STILL blathering on about a bunch of drunken Italians, in an
>> insignificant corner of the planet?
>
> That wasn’t just an isolated example of local climate
> change, neither were the ice ages or greenland when
> the vikings chose to colonise there.

**Then cite your evidence to show that the effect was planet-wide.
Northern AND Southern hemispheres.


>
>>>>>>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long
>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>>>>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fact.
>>>>
>>>> Then YOU need to cite where "those same people (who are studying AGW
>>>> theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling".
>>>>
>>>> The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
>
>> The first para from YOUR cite:
>
>> "Global cooling was a conjecture,
>
> So is AGW

**Umm, no. AGW theory was first proposed by Fourier. It was proven by
Arrhenius. That proof has NEVER been disproven. Not once, not ever. If
you think that Arrhenius is wrong, then post your proof.

>
>> especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling
>
> It wasn’t just about imminent, some or the scientists
> stated that we had actually seen cooling since 1940
> and that that was continuing.

**I just cited YOUR evidence you boob. You're arguing with your own cite!


>
>> of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation,
>
> Just like your hysterical claims about 60C temps.

**Again: You're arguing with your own cite.

>
>> due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing. Some press
>> reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;
>
> Not just press reports, by the scientists of the day too.

**Cite which CLIMATE SCIENTISTS made such claims.

>
>> these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the
>> time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
>> greenhouse effect.[1]"
>
> Plenty of scientists said that too, it wasn’t just the press.

**Cite which CLIMATE SCIENTISTS made such claims.

Do try to stop arguing with your own cite.


>
>> 'Global cooling' was bullshit then and it is bullshit now.
>
> That remains to be seen too. We do know
> that we do get ice ages periodically.

**We DID. No argument from me.

Tell me: What caused those ice ages?

Take as much time as you need to explain.

>
>> Since Arrhenius proved the connection between CO2 and rising
>> temperatures,
>
> But couldn’t explain why we didn’t see anything
> special average temperature wise when the CO2
> level was over 600ppm.

**Despite repeated requests, you have:

* Failed to tell us when this 600ppm event occurred.
* Failed to tell us what the average temperature of the planet was.
* Failed to present a cite to validate your claim.

>
>> no climate scientist has bought into your bullshit.
>
> It isn't my bullshit and hardly any climate scientist is
> actually stupid enough to run your line about 60C

**Oh really. When you look at these graphs, explain what magical,
mysterious mechanism will cause temperatures to suddenly stop rising:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

So, what will this magical mechanism be? You claim to know more than
every climate scientist on the planet. A Nobel Prize awaits.

You may place your trust in Alan Jones ScoMo, Tony Abbott, the other
deniers and magic. Me? I don't believe in magic, religion or any other
gobbledegook. Just science.

>
>>>>>> The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were the
>>>>>> imaginative writers of Time Magazine:
>
>>>>> Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on
>>>>> about.
>
>>>> No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.
>
>>> There was in fact a hell of a lot more claiming that than one time
>>> article.
>>> It was in fact just reporting on what they were claiming.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
>>
>> Who is "they"?
>
> The scientists of the day. including the U.S. National Academy of
> Sciences (NAS)

**Which scientists of the day? Who is "they"?

>
>> A bunch of idiots? Not interested in what idiots think about AGW.
>
> Having fun thrashing yet another straw man ?
>
>>>>>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>>> Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of
>>>>>> note. It is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as
>>>>>> credible as a Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>>  NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>
>>>> Then present your evidence.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
>
>>>>>> As I stated before:
>>>
>>>>>> Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
>>>>>> temperatures more than 100 years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
>>>>> the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
>>>>> and haven't returned to what the romans saw in england etc.
>>>
>>>> What the fuck are you smoking. I don't give a fuck about weather
>>>> conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.
>>>
>>> It wasn’t just there or in greenland.
>>
>> And yet, you blather on about a bunch of drunken Italians in England.
>
> Because that is the evidence of significantly higher temperatures
> than now which not only didn’t produce any tipping point, actually
> improved things for civilisation at that time and we didn’t see any
> 60C heatwaves or the decimation of all flora and fauna either.

**Wrong. Temperatures are higher today than at any time in human
history. Including the time when a bunch of drunken Italians were
wandering around Europe.

>
>>>> You're talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck's
>>>> sake. Climatology is concerned with AVERAGE climate conditions on a
>>>> planet-wide scale. To put that into perspective, England represents
>>>> 1/4000th the surface area of this planet. Four fifths of fuck-all.
>>>>
>>>> 1.1 degrees C AVERAGE temperature rise is both measurable and
>>>> significant.
>>>
>>> Pity it was more than that when the romans were in england and the
>>> vikings in greenland.
>>
>> **Again: Local climate effects are not the issue. Planet-wide climate is:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
>>
>> "That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the
>> Greek climate was basically the same then as around 2000."
>
>> Our climate is warmer today, than it was in 2000.
>
> Climate varys, that’s no news.

**Our climate is in a warming TREND.

>
>> Therefore, the temporary, local warming back then, was cooler than it
>> is today.
>
> Not in england.

**Again: 1/400th of the planet's surface.

>
>>>> Here is a record of temperatures for the past 2,000 years.
>>>
>>> Pity about before that.
>>>
>>>> Planet-wide, NOT a minuscule 1/4000th section of the planet.
>
> More of your flagrant dishonesty given that
>
>    The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a
>    period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

**From YOUR cite:

"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000."


>
**From YOUR cite:

"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000."

>
**And, here's the thing:

* We KNOW why the planet is warming right now. CO2 levels. There is no
other valid explantion.

>
>>>> However, there is evidence that the tipping point is being approached:
>>>
>>> Bullshit there is.
>>
>> **OK. You tell me:
>>
>> What magical mechanism exists to cause the present warming to cease?
>
> Same one that produces ice ages and little ice ages
> and what produced the signicant drop in temps
> post 1940, natural variation in world climate.

**And YOU need to tell us what magical mechanism will do that. We know
why temperatures were cooler from the 1940s through to the 1970s -
Atmospheric pollution. Ironically, pollution controls on automobiles and
industry have caused global warming to accelerate.

>
>> Take as much time and space as you need to respond.
>>
>>>
>>>> https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/massive-craters-in-siberia-are-exploding-into-existence-whats-causing-them
>>>>
>>>
>>> How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
>>> much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
>>> were growing much more in greenland than is possible now
>>
>> **The Poms are good at beer and crap at wine. It's a cultural thing,
>> not a climate thing. The drunken Italians prefer their own particular
>> crap wine. The French, Aussies and Americans are best at making decent
>> wine. Sometimes the Germans do a good drop. And the Kiwis. The Poms?
>> Nup. Never.
>
> They did during the roman warm period.

**You have no taste. The Poms have NEVER produced decent wine.

>
>>>> As you are no doubt aware, methane is around 20 TIMES more potent as
>>>> a GHG than CO2. There are billions of Tonnes of CO2 in permafrost
>>>> regions. As the methane is released, then greenhouse effects will
>>>> increase. This will lead to more warming and more methane release.
>>>> Allied with this, will be the release of CO2 from the oceans, as the
>>>> oceans warm further. At some point, the effect will be impossible to
>>>> reverse. Then we will be fucked.
>>>
>>> How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
>>> much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
>>> were growing much more in greenland than is possible now
>>
>> **And once more: A LOCALISED climate change
>
> It wasn’t.
>
>    The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a
>    period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic
>
>> is not a planet-wide one.
>
> The change in climate seen lately isn't either.

**Yeah, it is.

>
>>>>>> it is absolutely possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> How odd that that never happened even when the
>>>>> CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.
>>>
>>>> You really have done zero research, haven't you? NOT ONE TEENY TINY
>>>> BIT. Look at this:
>>>
>>> Don’t need to, that’s what I had researched.
>>
>> You not only have to research more, but you need to read your own
>> damned cites.
>
> You in spades with the roman warm period and global cooling.

**You may continue to use a localised climate variation to allow
yourself to continue to deny science, if that's what floats you boat.
However, until you explain the following:

* Why the warming period occurred.
* What will cause the present warming trend to reverse.

Then you are in deep shit. The ONLY known cause of the present warming
is due to the influence of excessive CO2 levels. Even Solar flux is
somewhat lower in the present cycle. When the Solar cycles resume, we
can expect the warming to accelerate. That may occur on the next cycle,
or in a hundred cycles. No one knows.

>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CO2 levels were estimated to be thousands of ppm 50 million years ago.
>>>
>>> What I was referring to.
>>
>> **Points:
>>
>> * Humans didn't exist back then.
>
> Irrelevant. Clearly that was natural variation in climate.
>
>> * It was MUCH hotter back then.
>
> But didn’t see no flora and fauna as you hysterically claimed.

**You don't read so good. The flora and fauna that we eat.

>
>>>>>>>> then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don’t need to, we didn’t see 60 degree C days when the CO2 levels
>>>>> were much higher than they are today. Its just your silly straw man.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, that is bullshit:
>>>
>>> Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm
>>
>> **Cite.
>>
>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
>>>>
>>>> I hasten to add that no human was alive when CO2 levels and temps
>>>> were that high.
>>>
>>> But plenty of flora and fauna were when the CO2 level was
>>> twice what it is now.
>>
>> **And it was MUCH hotter. Tell me: How long would it take for humans
>> to evolve to deal with temperatures that high?
>
> They don’t need to, we have invented funky stuff like air conditioning.

**Oh well then, that's just fine. What about the poor buggers who don't
have air con? Dunno about yours, but my air con is rated to operate at
temperatures lower than 55 degrees C. Beyond that, it doesn't work. So,
when I need it the most, it won't work.

>
>> How long would it take to develop crops and animals to survive those
>> temps?
>
> Again, they survived fine when it was much hotter than it is now.

**Points:
* It wasn't hotter then.
* You don't know which plants survived and which did not.


>
>>>>>>>>> No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.
>>>>>
>>>>> That shutting down the use of coal and fossil fuels.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No point in doing anything that stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to
>>>>>> rise at a faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past
>>>>>> million years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pity we didn’t see 60C even when the CO2
>>>>> levels were much higher than they are now.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong:
>>>
>>> Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm
>>
>> **Cite.

**Cite.

>>
>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
>>>
>>>> That said, it is correct to say that CO2 levels are higher today
>>>> than at any time in (at least) the past million years. Same with
>>>> temperatures.
>>>
>>> Pity that there was plenty of flora and fauna around well before that.
>>
>> **Could humans eat it?
>
> Obviously the fauna could.
>
>> Could we survive such temperatures?
>
> Corse we could given that we have invented air conditioning.

**See above.

>
>>>>>>>> There are lots of viable alternatives.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No need for them.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels,
>>>>>> as there are viable alternatives.
>>>>>
>>>>> You stupidly refuse the much more viable alternative, nukes.
>>>
>>>> IF the morons running this country decided TODAY, to build a nuke,
>>>> it would not be generating power for 20 years.
>>>
>>> That’s bullshit, the chinese build them much quicker than that.
>>
>> **Points:
>>
>> * We are not likely to buy a Chinese reactor anytime soon.
>
> But that shows it can be done.

**BY THE CHINESE. Not by anyone else.

>
>> * Would you trust a Chinese reactor?
>
> Irrelevant, that shows that its perfectly possible.

**Not by anyone who isn't Chinese.

>
>>>> In 20 years, we could fill a tiny corner of SA, WA and NT with solar
>>>> PV and generate enough power to satisfy the entire planet's needs
>>>> for electricity.
>>>
>>> But no viable way of getting it to the rest of the world.
>>
>> **Utter bullshit. We can:
>>
>> * Use HVDC cable to the coast.
>> * Send power via undersea HVDC cable.
>
> Doesn’t work to supply the entire world.

**Doesn't have to.

>
>> * Convert electricity to H2 and freight it to all over the joint.
>
> Stupid way to do things instead of using nukes where the power is needed.

**Why? There is this:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/japans-big-bet-on-hydrogen-could-revolutionize-the-energy-market-11623607695

Last time I looked, Japan was the planet's 3rd largest economy.

>
>> However, my point was a thought experiment (mostly), since we have no
>> politicians in this country capable of independent thought,
>
> Politicians are irrelevant to stuff like that. They
> didn’t produce planes, ships, cars, etc etc etc.

**They are abosolutely relevant when we have morons like Scummo peddling
coal, gas and anything that isn't renewables.

>
>> nor scientific knowledge and they can't think past the next election
>> anyway. However, we do have a couple of entrepreneurs who want to make
>> a difference.
>
> Who wont in fact do anything of the sort that way.

**Bullshit:

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/northern-territory-to-become-home-to-the-worlds-largest-solar-farm/

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> We could be an energy exporter.
>>>
>>> Not even to singapore, makes much more
>>> sense to have more nukes there instead.
>
>> **We'll see:
>
> It flop, just like the stupid tidal power systems all have.

**Why do you think that?

https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Trevor Wilson

unread,
Sep 20, 2021, 12:29:32 AM9/20/21
to
On 20/09/2021 2:11 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>
> **Again: 1/400th of the planet's surface.

**Whoops. That should be: 1/4,000th of the planet's surface.

Rod Speed

unread,
Sep 20, 2021, 12:52:09 AM9/20/21
to
> Then cite your evidence to show that the effect was planet-wide. Northern
> AND Southern hemispheres.

Doesn’t need to be to be not an in an insignificant corner of the planet?

Roman local warm time wasn’t anything like in an insignificant corner of the
planet?

>>>>>>>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long
>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>>>>>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then YOU need to cite where "those same people (who are studying AGW
>>>>> theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling".
>>>>>
>>>>> The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
>>
>>> The first para from YOUR cite:
>>
>>> "Global cooling was a conjecture,
>>
>> So is AGW
>
> Umm, no.

Fraid so.

> AGW theory was first proposed by Fourier. It was proven by Arrhenius.

Global cooling was proven by the ice ages.

> That proof has NEVER been disproven. Not once, not ever. If you think that
> Arrhenius is wrong, then post your proof.

Yet another straw man being furiously thrashed.

>>> especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling

>> It wasn’t just about imminent, some of the scientists
>> stated that we had actually seen cooling since 1940
>> and that that was continuing.

> I just cited YOUR evidence you boob. You're arguing with your own cite!

Nope, rubbing your nose in the fact that lots of the
most reputable scientists of the time were claiming
global cooling, just like plenty are now with AGW.

>>> of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation,

>> Just like your hysterical claims about 60C temps.
>
> Again: You're arguing with your own cite.

Nope, an given this shit is the best you can manage, here
goes the chain on the rest of your flagrantly dishonest shit.


Rod Speed

unread,
Sep 20, 2021, 12:56:45 AM9/20/21
to
Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
> Trevor Wilson wrote

>> Again: 1/400th of the planet's surface.

> Whoops. That should be: 1/4,000th of the planet's surface.

More of your flagrant dishonesty with

Trevor Wilson

unread,
Sep 20, 2021, 1:58:39 AM9/20/21
to
**Dunno. You're telling the story. It's hotter today anyway.


**I will ask again:

* When were CO2 levels at 600ppm?
* What was the average temperature of the planet?
* Cite.

>
>>>>>>>>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very
>>>>>>>>>> long time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>>>>>>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then YOU need to cite where "those same people (who are studying
>>>>>> AGW theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
>>>
>>>> The first para from YOUR cite:
>>>
>>>> "Global cooling was a conjecture,
>>>
>>> So is AGW
>>
>> Umm, no.
>
> Fraid so.

**Then supply your alternate explanation that proves Arrhenius wrong.

>
>> AGW theory was first proposed by Fourier. It was proven by Arrhenius.
>
> Global cooling was proven by the ice ages.

**So? What caused prior ice ages?

>
>> That proof has NEVER been disproven. Not once, not ever. If you think
>> that Arrhenius is wrong, then post your proof.
>
> Yet another straw man being furiously thrashed.

**Not at all. YOU claim that Arrhenius is wrong. You need to support
your insane claim with some proof.

>
>>>> especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling
>
>>> It wasn’t just about imminent, some of the scientists
>>> stated that we had actually seen cooling since 1940
>>> and that that was continuing.
>
>> I just cited YOUR evidence you boob. You're arguing with your own cite!
>
> Nope, rubbing your nose in the fact that lots of the
> most reputable scientists of the time were claiming
> global cooling, just like plenty are now with AGW.

**I'll ask again: WHICH scientists?

>
>>>> of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation,
>
>>> Just like your hysterical claims about 60C temps.
>>
>> Again: You're arguing with your own cite.
>
> Nope, an given this shit is the best you can manage, here
> goes the chain on the rest of your flagrantly dishonest shit.
>
>

**There you go, I restored all the questions you failed to respond to. I
wonder why?*

---
**Then cite your evidence to show that the effect was planet-wide.
Northern AND Southern hemispheres.


>
>>>>>>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very
long time.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>>>>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fact.
>>>>
>>>> Then YOU need to cite where "those same people (who are studying
AGW theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling".
>>>>
>>>> The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
>
>> The first para from YOUR cite:
>
>> "Global cooling was a conjecture,
>
> So is AGW

**Umm, no. AGW theory was first proposed by Fourier. It was proven by
Arrhenius. That proof has NEVER been disproven. Not once, not ever. If
you think that Arrhenius is wrong, then post your proof.

>
>> especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling
>
> It wasn’t just about imminent, some or the scientists
> stated that we had actually seen cooling since 1940
> and that that was continuing.

**I just cited YOUR evidence you boob. You're arguing with your own cite!


>
>> of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation,
>
> Just like your hysterical claims about 60C temps.

---


* I don't really wonder why. You realise that you've lost the argument.
Keep believing in magic. It will get you through.

NOT!

Phil Allison

unread,
Sep 20, 2021, 2:49:06 AM9/20/21