Australia suffers most extreme warming

Absolute rubbish

 

AM - you know if you actually Googled up some of this stuff you will find it is really urban legend.

Why not look at the science instead of listening to some half baked kid journalist making things up to sell news?

 

Try these BB

http://www.climatecooling.org/
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational...arming-the-missing-science/3155502#transcript

 

Actualy it was front page news in the Australian a while back, they had a satellite picture of Britton completely blanketed in snow. I will see if I can find it again for you.

 

Let us take this one at a time

The first is an astroturf site that does not even hide what it is. It is out there with an agenda and is basically someone's opinion. More cherry picking going on than the Murray Valley at harvest time

Take this statement as an example

Now instead of giving my analysis I am going to ask you what you think that implies

The second is to Ian Plimer - a very well known denialist touting his own book, by which he hopes to make money from global warming denialism

Now remind me again - what were those links supposed to prove?

 

Well done BB, you don't like the message so you shoot the messanger. In other words you are completely closed minded, the religion anlogy works well for you.
Try this one, there are lots of other good links here too.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/19/why-the-global-warming-pause-hasnt-gone-away/

 

Dont bother. One of the major predictions of a warming climate is colder winters in Western Europe

 

Now you are posting the ONE site with at least SOME credibility

But again let us get back to what you are trying to validate here because all you are doing so far is showing that there are denialist sites on the internet - that bit of information I worked out for myself some years ago. These random links seem to have nothing to do with your previous contention which was

You have not proven that "one of the most emminent climate scientist told England that they had seen their last snowfalls" you have not proven that And far from more cyclones up here in Queensland as we were told would happen we have seen far fewer!"

And in the long term Tim Flannery was correct because we are in the grip of a drought, and a rather severe one here in the North west. A flood one year does not drought proof the state!!

 

So the agw cult scientists have changed their predictions then. Why should we believe them this time?

 

Sure the idea has only been around since 1858

http://books.google.com/books?id=Le...+by+the+Gulf+Stream&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

I don't think you really want to consider other arguments. You just want to push the current conservative stance. I'm sure if Abbott said that AGW was real and that more extreme actions need to be taken you would be the first to support the initiative! Not hard to see to be honest!

 

Like I said in another thread TV, please try and discuss the topic, not the debaters.

 

Here ya go mate, it's not the original article but it does quote the article in question.
http://blog.heartland.org/2013/02/less-snow-but-more-blizzards-climate-alarmists-have-it-all-ways/

 

Lots of good stuff here about the agw scam from some very eminent scientists. (Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology).

http://judithcurry.com/

 

I'm Sorry but HEARTLAND????? Have you any idea who and what they are?


They are responsible for THIS advertising campaign



Somewhat unethical don't you think?

Then they followed up with

Yes if you want to find an institute that represents denialism then Heartland is just the one!
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/05/06/heartlands-unabomber-fiasco-is-par-for-the-course/

Personally I look at organisations such as Heartland and feel cleaner that I do not associate with them, their policies or anything about them

 

Talk about ad hominen, appears that the Authors of the article are the cause of disbelief of the content... No rebuttal just flagrant abuse of the source...

 

Curry is interesting - until recently she was not a denialist

http://desmogblog.com/judith-curry

Hmmmm - And until recently was more about being a sceptic to ensure that there was a counter voice out there, among the science community to ensure that there was no "group think"

But recently, well……….

http://desmogblog.com/judith-curry

For this to come from a climate scientist if true, is just…….

So let us see more about this counter proposal to explain what is happening in the world

And I cannot find anything about that on her blog

Maybe you can AM -

BTW when you give me a point to debate I will debate it but if you just post to a website without identifying WHAT in that website you want me to debate expect me to wipe the floor with the provenance of said website and author

 

Shooting the messangers again BB. I am just providing you with some sites as counterpoint to your often quoted alarmist Skeptic site which was created and is maintained by the high preists of the agw cult. As I have now shown, there are lots of scientists out there, professors and doctorate laurates who refute the alarmist line.
"..expect me to wipe the floor with the provenance of said website and author". So you ignore the science and immediately set about trying to discredit the source. Try appling your discrediting activities to the skepticalscience site because if you want a site that represents alarmism then the skepticalscience site is the one.
Just love the way you dismiss out of hand anyone who refutes your religion.

 

IF and WHEN you do the courtesy of pointing out which facts I am to debate I will do so.

What are your points? Which facts do you wish to debate?

Are you contending that "climate changes just because it does" or are you contending that CO2 has not risen

Give me the facts/points of discussion and I will debate THOSE. Simply link to some website you have googled but have not read yourself is…………….

 

Seeing you chose to ignore it I will post it again for you

http://books.google.com/books?id=Les...page&q&f=false

 

I tried to discuss the graphs you posted but your immediate response was to pick out just one of the points I made and deride it with quotes from your alarmist site. You are not interested in discussing anything, you just want to knock down anyone who refutes your religion.

 

Listen, first of all this new post of the link does not work... You could retry to post it but let us look at what you want to infer.

I believe you should leave the Thermohaline currents out of the debate of the Warmer religions as it is quite obvious that the actual observations do not meet the current belief.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/thc_fact_sheet.html

Basically what they are saying is that once temperatures rise to a certain point the currents will begin to slow and eventually stop. This slowing will supposedly cause cooling rather than warming as so many try to predict. Fact is last time the THCs stop the world entered a mini- ice age. HOWEVER, accordingly the THCs are slowing and the cooling affect supposedly carried by such does not seem apparent. This would be in the face of the claims of all the climate scientist who proclaim the warming religion. They continue to hypothesis this and that, but to this point NOBODY has observed anything that agrees with them.

So while they study the THCs of the world and TRY and discover the secret hidden, would you consider them to be great support for any climate theory??? Regardless of who observed them years ago...

From the same article.

As you can see the modelling with the THCs suggest real cooling rather than the catastrophic warming others would have us all to believe. BUT, there is real possibility that should this scenario occur then considerable cooling will occur. This is considered Low probability, but as they still are unable to determine the difference in their modelling to actual observations How can one tell???

 

So one of the leading proponents of AGW didn't know what he was talking about....

“Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become ‘a very rare and exciting event’. ‘Children just aren’t going to know what snow is’, he said.” Since then the UK has been struck with numerous snowstorms, some of record proportions, including 2013.”

 

Sorry you went to all that work. I am simply talking about the Gulf Stream being impacted by increasing fresh water coming out of Greenland. The Gulf stream stops turning right. Western Europe gets cold

 

As much as Einstein didn't know what he was talking about when he didn't recognize the universal constant in his calculations