cobran20

Advanced members
  • Content count

    11438
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by cobran20


  1. On 2/3/2020 at 11:05 PM, staringclown said:

    Well, to be fair he wouldn't be jailed just for climate change denial. He's met Trump and is trying on Trumpism for size. I'm not sure it will work here. I certainly hope not.

    I've been quiet for a few months now. The sheer ridiculousness of the rabbit hole that we have been dragged down by cobran20 is apparent to all.

    This is not meant to be a gloating post. But I'm still choking on smoke with 4 weeks left of summer. More a reset of the debate. Looking at you Anders.

    Adaptation and mitigation arguments in a vague concession to the reality don't seem to be cutting the mustard. 

    So you've decided to open the thread again after, in true leftard fashion, closed it as no dissent is allowed.

    So what is so special about the fires:

    It has been hotter, fires have burnt larger areas

    and here is another example.

    Naturally it's Their ABC, in its ever left bias tried to tell us that it is all climate change and not arson.

    But then the truth cannot be suppressed forever:

    Quote
    "A data collation and investigation plan has been developed to review the cause and impacts of the more than 1700 bushfires already reported to police; and consider the 12,000 fires recorded by the Rural Fire Service since August 2019," police said in a statement released on Friday.
     
    Of those 1700, police say that 716 were deliberate lit.

    716/1700 = 42.11% of fires investigated so far have been caused by arson ... and there we were told it was caused by globull warming.Yet Their ABC told us it was barely 1%.

    But it's Their ABC is not reporting the cold records being made around the world. The Electroverse site is tracking them.

    As I have posted earlier, the globull warming alarmist crowd have made forecasts for the last 30+ years, and proved to be false, which explains why the NOAA/IPCC,BOM/Others have been caught fudging the raw data to make their case and save face.

    As Armstrong likes to say, follow the money to find the truth. It is about the tax revenues from a carbon tax. The Canadian government introduced a carbon tax on its people in 2019 at $20.00 per tonne of CO2 and is set to rise to $50 a tonne by 2021.

    So far Armstrong's forecast is on the money.

    So feel free to shut the thread again, ban me altogether or in even more leftard fashion do both as well as delete this posting. Watch the elections. Like the Federal election in March, the silent majority has caught onto the BS. My money is on Trump to win again as the left and it's policies are clearly on the nose.

    I won't bother responding again as I don't bother with forums moderated to force the admin's outright bias.

     

     

    thumbnail.png


  2. 10 hours ago, staringclown said:

    That's rich coming from you who've provided absolutely no proof of anything. You rely on google alerts to post any headline around the world that had some cold weather. You don't even read the articles. That's why you post a school kids blog and call it proof. 

    Here's the homogenised data versus the actual data - massive difference eh?

     
    temperature-trends.jpg

    Firstly, I don't have to prove anything as I'm not an advocate of globull warming theory. All I'm doing to comparing their predictions based on the theory over the last 30-50 years versus the actuals and they've been wrong. Shame those scientists were not forced to bet their house on their predictions - nothing like skin in the game to make you accountable.

    As far as your chart, the article in the Australian from Marohassy is behind a paywall, so I can't paste the contents, but I've found other sites (here and here) that refer to it, with some lovely tables. I like this bit in particular:

    Quote

    by Jennifer Marohasy on July 18, 2017:

    TWO weeks ago, in response to my queries the Australian Bureau of Meteorology acknowledged that it had put in place limits on the lowest temperature that an individual weather station could record.

    Once again, if you consider Marohassy to be an unqualified charlatan, then feel free to contact her and tell her as such. It should be easy for you to point the irrefutable facts from the settled science. Make sure you keep us posted on the exchange. Ditto for the NZ professor. I'm awaiting with great anticipation to your postings on those exchanges.


  3. 22 hours ago, staringclown said:

     

    Your bait and switch is growing tiresome. You post some sh*t about Fort Denison when no-one has claimed that Fort Denison is at threat of inundation. YOU posted that the Netherlands and Florida were predicted to be submerged and then ignore all evidence that flooding has been increasing and that if not for preventative measures that's exactly what would be happening.

    Then you post the blog of a high school student to support your nonsense in regard to all time records being broken. You're a f*cking joke!

    You keep sh*tting on about "homogenised" data. You don't have a clue what it even means. You use NOAA data which you also have been shown to not understand to support yours claims. Oh sorry, it is only valid when it shows cooling?

    What about Jennifer Marohasy? Is she a climate scientist? No, she's a biologist. The pay for publish "Journal" in which she was published has been shut down. Probably due to the fake reviews it accepted.

    The bottom line is that all the d&g globull warming predictions are proving false. Live with it!

    Once again, if a pharma company homogenised its trial data to make it fit its expectations, it would be sued.

    If industry built manufacturing plants based on the level of accuracy of the science of globull warming, it would go bankrupt. 


  4. 7 hours ago, staringclown said:

    No sh*t Sherlock. If something is prevented by definition it doesn't actually happen. Your replies are growing increasingly bizarre. Are you claiming the the billions spent by the Dutch weren't necessary?

    Severe Coastal Flooding in Florida Is Getting Worse, New Study Finds

    So now you don't even require your sources dismissing climate change to have finished high school.

    At least your NZ professor has a qualification. Albeit in fibre rather than climate science.

    The Netherlands have always been a low land country. A lot of their land has been reclaimed from the sea, started before globull warming was even mentioned. They don't have dykes for nothing.

    So how are those doomsday globull warming predictions coming along? Here is a video with some nice historical perspective on those current hot temps in the northern hemisphere. I'm surprised the Dept of Settled Science has not homogenised the digitised old newspapers available on the web.

     


  5. 50 minutes ago, staringclown said:

    They use the same data that you use when you talk about the medieval warm and the little ice age.

    Florida sea level rise costing 4 billion

    While you're in the Netherlands be sure to take a look at the very impressive and expensive engineering works the dutch have had to build since 1978 to prevent the country being submerged.

     

    There is a difference between prevention and actually happening. Have the levels risen at Fort Denison in any way over the last 100 years?

    as to the rest:

    Quote

    ...While it’s incredible that Paris exceeded their record high on Thursday, it’s important that we look not only at trends but also give a bit of perspective.

    No one should make a preconceived assumption based on one daily temperature measurement.

    You have to first look at whether or not a record temperature occurred in an urban area, then see what the upper air pattern is doing, and lastly look at trends and previous years with similar atmospheric conditions.

    Skeptics who use cold and snow as evidence that global warming is a hoax are always reminded by climate activists that weather and climate are vastly different—and they’d be correct.

    So, why do activists blame a single record-high temperature, let alone a summer heatwave, on climate change? That I can’t answer. It seems to me that it’s “do as I say, not as I do.”

    The bottom line is this: heatwaves happen, it’s summer and it’s hot.

    BTW, have you contacted the NZ Professor yet to tell him he is wrong?


  6. On 7/26/2019 at 7:31 PM, staringclown said:

    Was that using raw or homogenised data? I'm still awaiting explanation why we're get records in that 'ever disappearing' snow and cold temperatures as well, never mind that the Maldives haven't sunk.

    But one of the dissidents has a forecast about the extremes which I already posted here.

    Looking forward to the overall crop yields for this year! We'll see the effects of the 'F' word and that will not be consistent with globull warming theory.

    In the meantime, have a look at yet another classic prediction from the Dept of Settled Science & Associates. Refer page 7 in the WSJ Article (copy attached):

    Quote

    February 2, 1978

    Low-Lying Lands Could Be Submerged By Climatic Disaster

    A   climatic   disaster,   triggered  by  the  continued  burning  of  oil  and  coal,  could  result in  the  submergence  of  much  of Florida,  Holland    and    other low-lying  areas  in  the  next  50 years,  an  Ohio  State  University scientist  predicted.

    I'll be heading that way next year. I'll let you know if I need a raft to get around. But so far, that forecast is dead wrong!

    WSJ130Final.pdf


  7. NASA - Solar Activity Forecast for Next Decade Favorable for Exploration

    Quote

    ...The forecast for the next solar cycle says it will be the weakest of the last 200 years. The maximum of this next cycle – measured in terms of sunspot number, a standard measure of solar activity level – could be 30 to 50% lower than the most recent one. The results show that the next cycle will start in 2020 and reach its maximum in 2025....

    looks like more of that rare white powdery stuff will appear in buttf@ck places around the globe!


  8. Looks like the Dutch are in for a bit of the Australian experience

    Dutch Govt To Start Turning Off Gas Supply To Households

    Quote

    ....

    And, of course, the implications are huge. The unlucky householders affected will need to find maybe £10000 or more, simply to replace their boilers with non-gas alternatives. They will then be faced with much higher energy bills as well, thanks to the fact that electricity is more expensive than gas. [Electricity prices are about double those of gas in the Netherlands, according to the EU. However, about half of the gas price is made up of taxes. Whether consumers or government stand the cost of the switch from gas remains to be seen]

    Moreover, electricity prices will continue to rise in future, as the grid switches to more renewable sources.

    As even Milieudefensie, the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth, admit, the costs are real and cannot be ignored. It seems certain that government will have to provide some funding, given that the costs are unevenly distributed and hit those with lower incomes the most. But as they also accept, the bill is simply too huge for the government to bear.

    If we translate into UK terms, to convert all of the homes on the gas grid, in the region of 25m, would cost £250 billion, at £10,000 a time.

    Looking forward to the election results after they receive their new energy bills.


  9. Looks like this Professor's tenure is about to be terminated early!

    Dr Geoff Duffy: Methane stance way off track

    Quote

    ...Global cloud cover has been studied for many years, but the IPCC's latest report (AR5, 2013), admits it doesn't know whether it is expanding or shrinking, which means it can't say what warming - if any - our emissions might cause...

    ...Gaps in these areas of knowledge caused all 102 CMIP-5 climate models relied on by the IPCC to fail to predict recent global temperatures, which have been essentially constant for two decades, despite carbon dioxide rising 9 per cent in that time....

    WHY IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ANY of the NON-CONDENSABLE GREENHOUSE GASES TO HAVE AN APPRECIABLE AFFECT on WEATHER and CLIMATE CHANGE

    Quote

    ...It is scientifically inaccurate and dishonest to isolate “radiation - low concentration/noncondensable greenhouse GASES” without fully endorsing: {direct radiation - LIQUID water
    interactions), {direct radiation – SOLID matter exchanges}, {radiation - water vapour
    excitations}, as well as all the other thermal and non-thermal humidity driving forces in winds,
    thermals, gales, rain, storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, Trade Winds, Jet streams, El Nino’s, La
    Nina’s, atmospheric pollution and incomplete combustion particulates. All are significant! The
    impacting effects of ocean currents, ocean conveyors, cloud dynamics and sun spot activity.
    No wonder that simplified mathematical models fail to predict climate change.
    Geoff Duffy July 2019
    Professor Emeritus Chemical Engineering
    geoffduffy@lycos.com

    Is the Dept of Settled Science already writing his obituary due to accidental ingestion of polonium?