after you good sir

let's deal with the good Professor first ... his was my argument of alarmism in my statement

not of loggy or his tube clip

not of the fact the climate is changing (for about forever)

my interest is in Prof Steffen

any link of peer support for his 1 in 100 year floods happening every few days in Sydney by the turn of the century will do?

i will deal with his tenuous Black Saturday bushfire tragedy in due course

the alarmist goose Prof Steeen has used the magic of 114 IPCC computer models where none of them are in 100% agreeance and chosen for some reason to postulate that a once in 100 years event would start happening EVERY FEW DAYS

and suckers tumble in to his political alarmist propaganda


this is where you came in afl

Please post a peer reviewed paper....... you know what that is don't you?

---

i am assuming by your statement you are aware of perr review

so please post me a link supporting the good Prof's claim there will be a one in 100 years flood occuring EVERY FEW DAYS in sydney by the turn of the century 

2 or 3 years and you can't post ONE CLIMATE SCIENTIST that agrees with you.....

OHH  conspiracy man is back.......it's all a conspiracy like man landing on the moon.....never happened

PLLLEEAAASSSSEEE.

so Prof Steefen and his Climate Council group got their heads together and decided to include the "definitive " statement in their IPCC-like manifesto which read ...

The effect of extreme heat (see section 1.1 above) was an important factor in the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria

but how important Prof .. when the full facts of that awful tragedy were examined

maaybe the Prof was holidaying at the beach when the ABC reported ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-27/black-saturday-arsonist-sentenced-to-28holdholdhold29/3976564

A former Victorian Country Fire Authority (CFA) volunteer has been sentenced to 17 years and nine months in jail for killing 10 people by deliberately lighting a bushfire on Black Saturday.

Brendan Sokaluk, 42, was found guilty of 10 counts of arson causing death in the Victorian Supreme Court for deliberately lighting the Churchill fire on February 7, 2009.


or maybe the Prof was away when the Supreme Court at another trial heard ...

THE damage caused by a lightning strike to the powerline that sparked a deadly Black Saturday bushfire which killed 119 people was so small it was undetectable, the Supreme Court has heard.

It was alleged the man who inspected the line in February 2008, one year prior to the fatal blaze, was incompetent, insufficiently trained and had previously failed four audits of his inspections.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/inexperienced-worker-inspected-powerline-that-caused-black-saturday-bushfire-court-hears/story-fnat79vb-1226590707270?nk=f16e847fb81590052497a99dcd0e57c4


---


look AFL something is going on in with Climate for sure mate i get that

how much and how damaging NO ONE can predict ... if something is to be done then i humbly suggest that ...

running around like chooks without heads in a full blown ALARMIST  frenzy .. is doing more damage to the cause and possible solution than anything a denier might EVER say

and to think after 10 years all they can come up with is ...

letting rich miners trade money with rich bankers to appease the UN wealth redistribution plan

the ETS is THE BIGGEST RORT EVER 

I knew it was bullsh it  beause it was said by a lying rodent called John Howard.

anyway have a good day on the punt tomorrow  BJT

I'm outta here.

Umm no.  USA was creating whatever they wanted to gain approval to get over there.


Interesting how you believe Al Gore though.  He isn't a lying Rodent?  Was he not in bed with the oil companies?  Or how exactly did he sell his network with 30k viewers a day, for 500 million, and who was it to? 

Believe Al Gore word for word, yet John Howard was a lying rodent?


Ok then....

There you go again saying / implying that it is somehow contradictory or hypocritical to believe one case over

the other. Because one was a liar in your eyes and the other one was a lier in my eyes.

How many people did it take to pull off the biggest conspiracy in history  by  making it appear that Man

landed on the moon when they were really only meters away from the staff canteen at NASA all the time.

1

10

100

1000

10000  ?

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”




Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.




One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus

Hard to reason with idiots BJT....

100% of the human race believe in climate change, we see it happens every day, much like the previous billion days

BIGGEST RORT EVER

all for it womble......not through a bankers picnic though

you should be happy with these "bankers" Thebas

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29310475


22 September 2014 Last updated at 11:26

Rockefellers to switch investments to 'clean energy'

Rockefeller Brothers Fund director Stephen Heintz said the move to divest from fossil fuels would be in line with oil tycoon John D Rockefeller's wishes,

"We are quite convinced that if he were alive today, as an astute businessman looking out to the future, he would be moving out of fossil fuels and investing in clean, renewable energy," Mr Heintz said in a statement.

you still just don't get it do you womble 

you would have remembered this deal from a couple of years back

http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-rothschilds-and-rockefellers-join-forces-in-multi-billion-dollar-deal/


nothing smarter for a rich banking dynasty than to do the "al gore" game of having investments in CARBON CREDITS

to sell to  .... ???

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who is intimately involved with the planning of cap-and-trade, started up a company called Generation Investment Management with three former bigwigs from Goldman Sachs Asset Management, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris.

Their business?    Investing in carbon offsets.

The volume of this new Cap & Trade market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually

For comparison's sake, the annual combined revenues of all electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $320 billion.

Will this Cap & Trade market be bigger than the energy futures market?

"Oh, it'll dwarf it," says a former staffer on the House energy committee.

Cap-and-trade is going to happen.

Or, if it doesn't, something like it will. The moral is the same as for all the other bubbles that Goldman helped create, from 1929 to 2009.

In almost every case, the very same bank that behaved recklessly for years, weighing down the system with toxic loans and predatory debt, and accomplishing nothing but massive bonuses for a few bosses, has been rewarded with mountains of virtually free money and government guarantees — while the actual victims in this mess, ordinary taxpayers, are the ones paying for it.

as usual brilliant posting Thebas
BIGGEST RORT EVER