Climate change academics “strike back”
Surfer
IN the midst of Copenhagen, the University of Western Australia (UWA)
hosted its own contentious event last week, exploring some of the
information, or �disinformation�, available on anthropogenic global
warming.
At the event, Shaping the Future of Climate Change: Dogma or Consensus
� Scepticism or Denial, Professor Malcolm McCulloch from ANU�s School
of Earth Sciences presented �The science and forensics of climate
change�.
Prof McCulloch, also the deputy director of the ARC Centre of
Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, says ice core records and the best
scientific data all reveal there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now,
than in the past million years.
�In the past 10,000 years, the ice core data shows the CO2 was sitting
around 280ppm. It did rise a little, up to about 290,� Prof McCulloch
says.
�In the most recent era, through industrialisation, we�re approaching
390ppm and we are on our way to 400.
�From about 1950 onwards is when the most rapid increases occurred.
�It�s not surprising that this is consistent with the burning of
energy, in particular coal, oil and gas. There�s a correlation between
energy use and the rise in CO2.
�This rapid rise is unprecedented in the ice core records that we
have.
�Acting now will minimise risk in the most cost-effective manner.�
Professor Stephan Lewandowsky from the School of Psychology says this
information is not dogmatic and the data is freely accessible on the
Internet.
He also says the number of scientific papers which have been
misrepresented in the media is disturbing.
He refers particularly to an article in The Australian, �Climate
claims fail science test�, stating scientists achieved a breakthrough
by revealing while the Earth was cooling, CO2 went up.
The article refers to research from a paper published in Nature,
�Atmospheric carbon dioxide through the Eocene�Oligocene climate
transition�, by Paul Pearson, Gavin Foster and Bridget Wade.
�In the paper, researchers said CO2 went down as [the Earth] was
cooling and is in agreement with carbon cycle modelling,� Prof
Lewandowsky says.
�How do you reconcile that with what The Australian is saying?
�So I sent [the authors of the paper] an email about it.
�They replied, �we also have difficulty reconciling our results this
article� and they submitted a letter to the Editor in which they say
�the article has misrepresented our recent research�.
�They concluded by adding their strong voices to the need to do
something about CO2.�
In response to the recent �Email-gate� scandal, Prof Lewandowsky says
�a conspiracy doesn�t make temperatures rise or ice caps melt�.
To finish, Professor Carmen Lawrence from UWA�s School of Psychology
presented a petition to rally support for the work of climate
scientists.
�It emphasises the importance of back the science and repudiating
deniers,� she says.
She says the statement aims to �prevent attacks on science�[which]
undermine and pervert healthy discussions�.
Post-event discussions and questions arose from both sides of the
debate.
Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipvdBnU8F8
- KRudd at his finest.
"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.
"This is the recession we had to have!"
- Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.
"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.
"By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
- Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.
"A billion trees ..."
- Borke, pissed as a newt again.
"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee for Governor General John Kerr.
"SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU DUMB CUNT!"
- FlangesBum on learning the truth about Labour's economic capabilities.
"I don't care what you fuckers think!"
- KRudd the KRude Rat at his finest again.
"We'll just change it all when we get in."
- Garrett the carrott
Eunometic
> http://www.sciencewa.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...
>
> IN the midst of Copenhagen, the University of Western Australia (UWA)
> hosted its own contentious event last week, exploring some of the
> information, or “disinformation”, available on anthropogenic global
> warming.
>
If the climate change insistors want to be taken seriously they need
to do a few things:
1 Not gang up or manipulate the peer review process or better still
get rid of peer review and head towards open auditing. Peer review is
a bit of a joke.
2 Science works by testing propositions that MUST be falsifiable.
The IPCC process is "political" and "consensus" based. Its a
managerial process that leaves no funding or room for skeptics or
objectors.
3 We've seen the disgusting personal attacks AGW alarmist and
insistors have made at sceptics. This is simply immoral and it is
unscientific.
The other big thing is of course the conflation of carbon dioxide
emisions reduction with loads of free cash for the 3rd world loons
dictators.
Hell, I'm not going to give money to figging ethiopia or somalia while
the retards dictators running it are running it.
The evidence is weak, despite the scare campaigne.
We need better computers, better computer models and acknowledgement
that positive feedback forcing may not be happening.
This means a 1 degree temperature change.
7
> IN the midst of Copenhagen, the University of Western Australia (UWA)
> hosted its own contentious event last week, exploring some of the
> information, or �disinformation�, available on anthropogenic global
> warming.
>
> At the event, Shaping the Future of Climate Change: Dogma or Consensus
> � Scepticism or Denial, Professor Malcolm McCulloch from ANU's School
> of Earth Sciences presented �The science and forensics of climate
> change�.
Conclusion: The Anus School of Earth Science is warming the earth too much
by farting out of control. Its a tragedy! Use selotape to save the planet.
Holowarming still remains in-tact as a hoax
-------------------------------------------
It has moved into pseudo science arrived at by faking data,
sneaking into peer review process, getting opposition sacked
from their jobs by ringing up their owners and the like.
Its become a means to an end.
Its a bad hoax at that. Its responsible for all
kind of unnecessary taxes and changes to the way
we live without any scientific or material proof.
Holowarming funding needs to be cut.
The holowarming crap needs to curtailed.
99% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor H20.
It is the billions of liters of water in the form
of clouds in the sky. Two thirds of the planet is water
and thats why there is so much of it about.
The 0.05% of CO2 and other trace gases
DO NOT contribute to global warming AND CAN NEVER EVER
become a major factor to global warming.
They don't have the heat capacity unlike H2O gas
to carry heat around the globe.
The holowarmers faking their science DO NOT integrate their results over
a 24 hour period - instead some fruit cakes science is used
calculating between 12:00 noon and 12:01 to get an answer
and deliberately avoid discussion on finer points of the erroneous methods.
A desert cools at the rate of 1 degree every 10 minutes
in the night when there no water vapor (i.e. cloud cover) around, despite
all the trace gases being the same because nearly all of the heat
around the planet is carried by water vapor.
Anyone claiming otherwise is a steaming lying holowarming
crap artist in need of some urgent education.
7
> On Jan 3, 6:21 pm, Surfer <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>> http://www.sciencewa.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...
>>
>> IN the midst of Copenhagen, the University of Western Australia (UWA)
>> hosted its own contentious event last week, exploring some of the
>> information, or “disinformation”, available on anthropogenic global
>> warming.
>>
>
> If the climate change insistors want to be taken seriously they need
> to do a few things:
> 1 Not gang up or manipulate the peer review process or better still
> get rid of peer review and head towards open auditing. Peer review is
> a bit of a joke.
Now the fiasco is taken hold, they must be transparent on ALL issues.
Upload all the their data to public servers. The public has
paid for it and they have the full right to view it and interpret
it to get to grips with the science that they don't understand
or represent faithfully.
For the more dubious characters within the AGW camp, I would
also urge them to upload all their emails to public servers
as well if they worked in a publicly funded institution.
No one understands their story or their reasoning any more
and we need to understand them personally a bit more.
> 2 Science works by testing propositions that MUST be falsifiable.
> The IPCC process is "political" and "consensus" based. Its a
> managerial process that leaves no funding or room for skeptics or
> objectors.
Consensus is a political word illegally applied to anyone that
participates in climate science. In science there is experimentation
and evidence which is independent of political concensus.
In politics there is consensus depending on who controls the media
and political consensus is free of scientific constraints.
> 3 We've seen the disgusting personal attacks AGW alarmist and
> insistors have made at sceptics. This is simply immoral and it is
> unscientific.
They use the term deniers which is also a political term
used to cast out doubters by zealots who can't tolerate anyone
with a different politics other than their own. In science
there is evidence and evidence is independent of deniars and skeptics.
> The other big thing is of course the conflation of carbon dioxide
> emisions reduction with loads of free cash for the 3rd world loons
> dictators.
And the worst part, there is no evidence for link of CO2 with
temperature. With water vapor being the predominant >95% effect
of heat transport, the <0.05% CO2 gas has no effect and will NEVER have
any effect on heat transport above noise levels.
> Hell, I'm not going to give money to figging ethiopia or somalia while
> the retards dictators running it are running it.
>
> The evidence is weak, despite the scare campaigne.
>
> We need better computers, better computer models and acknowledgement
> that positive feedback forcing may not be happening.
> This means a 1 degree temperature change.
No we don't. We need to stop funding AGW fraud - it is not a science.
Their crap science and public perception management has got you
thinking they were on to something that you should worry about
so that you can buy them more computers and pay for more
software programs. Its utter crap science that needs big spending
cuts and replacement of holowarmers with sensible politically neutral
scientists that have no affiliation with or share aspirations of
holowarmers and who are prepared to go on with the science
for science sake.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Morton Davis
"Surfer" <n...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:fbh0k59k49g8795uj...@4ax.com...
>
Man made climate change/global warming is a proven lie, which makes you a
spamming liar.
george
So far I've extracted over 600 email addresses from the released
emails.
There are a LOT more emails that are still hidden away somewhere.
Rev. 11D Meow!
george
It's called research.
Scientists (real ones) do it all the time..
Takes time and patience and in this case you can never tell who the
players are until you complete it.
Only then can you see who was directing the traffic, who was the
'heavy' keeping the doubters in line and, in one case, who was
threatening some-one with legal action because they doubted the
official story.
Rev. 11D Meow!
wrote:
Good Luck With That, 'george' TEH MAN!
Please go back to school so you can learn some real language arts
skillz, 'george'.
george
Ah. You got the message atributes wrong.
Not me!
But seeing that your life choice is to be wrong at all turns....
Rev. 11D Meow!
wrote:
Gee 'george', you sure are offal smart!
Last Post
> http://www.sciencewa.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...
>
> At the event, Shaping the Future of Climate Change: Dogma or Consensus
> – Scepticism or Denial, Professor Malcolm McCulloch from ANU’s School
> of Earth Sciences presented “The science and forensics of climate
> change”.
>
> Prof McCulloch, also the deputy director of the ARC Centre of
> Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, says ice core records and the best
> scientific data all reveal there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now,
> than in the past million years.
• Surfer: Where do you find these clowns? He
is blowing smoke out his ass while that
statement is patently false I was looking at a
journal with a graph showing CO2 /temp
combined through all the geologic eras.
I believe you posted in those threads
>
> “In the past 10,000 years, the ice core data shows the CO2 was sitting
> around 280ppm. It did rise a little, up to about 290,” Prof McCulloch
> says.
>
> “In the most recent era, through industrialisation, we’re approaching
> 390ppm and we are on our way to 400.
• He makes a mistake by his little exaggeration
because that disputes everything else he says.
The fact is that the CO2 levels recorded from
1820 to 1950 averaged 333 with many readings
above 400 even as late as 1946.
> “From about 1950 onwards is when the most rapid increases occurred.
ROTFLMAO:—
Only if you call 45 ppm in 90 years "rapid" (0.5 ppm pa)
> “It’s not surprising that this is consistent with the burning of
> energy, in particular coal, oil and gas. There’s a correlation between
> energy use and the rise in CO2.
• Only about 3.5% of all the anthropogenic
emissions ever get to the clouds. McCulloch
must think that CO2 is lighter than air or he
needs to learn about Newton.
> “This rapid rise is unprecedented in the ice core records that we
> have.
• Bulloney
> “Acting now will minimise risk in the most cost-effective manner.”
• Since there is no established risk proved in any
way by McCulloch how can there be a
"cost-effective manner"?
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena