So how about that global warming?

Twit · Post by **Twit** » 07 Dec 2011 09:02 pm

Just for the record - I don’t take it personally and I’m not all pissy or anything Madmya. Honestly, some annoying stuff at work recently has just made me feel like getting into a good argument for some catharsis or something. I do genuinely mean everything I’ve said, but I’m not really doing this with malice or anything. Not sure if that’s a redundant thing to say on the internet, but whatever.

Come to think of it, I probably do suck at this. I should just call you a tockley again.

Peppermint Lounge · Post by **Peppermint Lounge** » 07 Dec 2011 09:24 pm

Madmya wrote:Hahah yeah that's right Pep, I fucking hate the gays. You were probably waiting for something else though since I called you a dick earlier for butting in with a stupid comment.

You're being bit of a princess now. I didn't think my comment was stupid at all and certainly not intended to irritate you. This new study is a prediction, yes, one based on a large quantity of research including a couple of centuries worth of data. As predictions go it is a calculated one. Of further interest is its conclusion is the same as that from the IPCC, another bunch of dudes who predict things albeit comprehensively.

BruceCamblzChin · Post by **BruceCamblzChin** » 07 Dec 2011 09:30 pm

IPCC? They are dodge.

Froggy · Post by **Froggy** » 07 Dec 2011 10:04 pm

Ah Madmya, thanks for jumping in to help me out when he did try to do what you say to win an argument. Good on you for not letting him back out of it either, even though his two mates jumped in. You won this thread. :aussie:

Vzzzbx · Post by **Vzzzbx** » 07 Dec 2011 10:07 pm

I love how Froggy of all people is the self-appointed arbiter of who wins threads.

Froggy · Post by **Froggy** » 07 Dec 2011 10:08 pm

deal with it Turkey

Vzzzbx · Post by **Vzzzbx** » 07 Dec 2011 10:15 pm

I won that.

Madmya · Post by **Madmya** » 07 Dec 2011 10:45 pm

Peppermint Lounge wrote:
Madmya wrote:Hahah yeah that's right Pep, I fucking hate the gays. You were probably waiting for something else though since I called you a dick earlier for butting in with a stupid comment.
You're being bit of a princess now. I didn't think my comment was stupid at all and certainly not intended to irritate you. This new study is a prediction, yes, one based on a large quantity of research including a couple of centuries worth of data. As predictions go it is a calculated one. Of further interest is its conclusion is the same as that from the IPCC, another bunch of dudes who predict things albeit comprehensively.

You might not have thought it but it was. I don't think you understand how simulations work. The amount of data is irrelevant in the end, it all comes down to how it's used.

GeneraL CyberFunK · Post by **GeneraL CyberFunK** » 08 Dec 2011 12:28 am

Madmya doesn't hate the gays... I mean come on... He has Darren Lockyer as his avatar pic... And it's no secret in Brisbane that Lockyer has a thing for teh c0ck....

Twit · Post by **Twit** » 08 Dec 2011 03:05 pm

I’m sure you’ve all encountered and dismissed Skeptical Science links before, but in case you haven’t and are actually interested then here are a few that address some of the arguments that cropped up in this very thread. I’ll even considerately hide them so you don’t have to get all offended by it if you don't want!

[Click to see hidden content]: ...

Climate models are unreliable:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Climate is chaotic:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/chaos-t ... dicted.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It could be the sun:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-c ... arming.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/acrim-p ... hotter.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It’s changed before:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... period.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It’s freaking cold:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... eather.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...and many many more if you like. Of course if you think that site is part of a global conspiracy then none of it will matter to you, and obviously it would also pay to remain skeptical of skeptics being skeptical of skepticism to some rational extent. Not citing it as gospel or 100% truth, just as some worthwhile reading arguments. Is that enough disclaimer?

Madmya · Post by **Madmya** » 08 Dec 2011 04:43 pm

I think I've already asked you before if you're intentionally being dense.

When I did computational chemistry the arsehole of a lecturer we had always used to hammer us with 'just because your model agrees with your expected results doesn't mean it's right' and he had a pet hate with anyone in literature that would say something along the lines of 'the results of the simulation agree with this so it must be right' to the point that he would humiliate them in front of colleagues in conferences even. He's not well liked.

I have no problem with what these people are trying to achieve but I do have a problem with the reaction it's getting, and even the way they've portrayed their results.

Peppermint Lounge · Post by **Peppermint Lounge** » 08 Dec 2011 05:36 pm

You describe what an arsehole your lecturer was, how he was not well liked, and yet does it occur to you you've attempted to behave in an identical fashion during this conversation.

Twit · Post by **Twit** » 08 Dec 2011 05:48 pm

Madmya wrote:I think I've already asked you before if you're intentionally being dense.

Nice of you to keep it civil.

When I did computational chemistry the arsehole of a lecturer we had always used to hammer us with 'just because your model agrees with your expected results doesn't mean it's right' and he had a pet hate with anyone in literature that would say something along the lines of 'the results of the simulation agree with this so it must be right' to the point that he would humiliate them in front of colleagues in conferences even. He's not well liked.

I have no problem with what these people are trying to achieve but I do have a problem with the reaction it's getting, and even the way they've portrayed their results.

I assume you're talking about the first link on how reliable the models are. I agree with what you wrote above. I don't think I'm just blindly trusting these models without question though, and I certainly don't think we should blatantly dismiss them because they're not absolutely perfect (which seems to be the more common reaction). They represent the best we've got. They've been used in hindcasting, they've been used to make predictions and then tested against outcomes, and you can see on the intermediate tab how they fare against observations.

So the science is limited but hardly to the extent that some would assume. They aren't wild guesses with no relation to reality. They are pretty damn good, and although we should indeed be careful not to assume they are the final absolute word - they are still the most useful tool in our arsenal for working out what's happening. And what they tell us is worrying. Not OMG sudden death any second worry, but real significant potential issues that might cause us some genuine problems if we don't start considering what we are doing.

Vzzzbx · Post by **Vzzzbx** » 08 Dec 2011 05:54 pm

Madmya, I just went back through this thread and have confirmed that, apart from telling people that you know how simulations work, you haven't actually said anything.

itch · Post by **itch** » 08 Dec 2011 05:56 pm

Do you think it's possible that affordability could have more of an impact on peoples lives than any detrimental effects of climate change?

Negative impact, I mean.

Twit · Post by **Twit** » 08 Dec 2011 06:03 pm

I personally see climate change as starting the hurt in economical terms the more it takes effect, and that measures to reduce emissions (if not completely overboard and gradually phased in) will ultimately save us from greater economic pain in the long run than they initially cost. But that’s just a 2c opinion.

Edit: and another link to that site for whatever it might be worth.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Froggy · Post by **Froggy** » 08 Dec 2011 06:19 pm

wow, you are deluded and Good on Vzzzbx for completely missing Madmya's points *facepalm*

So seeing as how the IPCC's best models are off on temperature projections by a megaton in scientific modelling terms you want me to believe that all the new ones are better because skeptical science says so? It could be -10 degrees around the globe and he'd still make a post about how it's not happening. That brings up another question, what is it with religious people and AGW that they simply must take up the cause so much that it's turned into a defacto religion on it's own.

Madmya · Post by **Madmya** » 09 Dec 2011 12:14 pm

Vzzzbx wrote:Madmya, I just went back through this thread and have confirmed that, apart from telling people that you know how simulations work, you haven't actually said anything.

Yeah, I know! That's the most frustrating thing about it, all I wanted to say was that those results shouldn't be misconstrued yet it's somehow blown into me challenging the theory of global warming when I haven't even done any of that.

Madmya · Post by **Madmya** » 09 Dec 2011 12:21 pm

Peppermint Lounge wrote:You describe what an arsehole your lecturer was, how he was not well liked, and yet does it occur to you you've attempted to behave in an identical fashion during this conversation.

Well no I haven't gone to a conference and heard these guys speak first, then when it's my turn I spend the first 10 minutes on why the previous speaker's work was rubbish. But hey, I guess you're immune from being a wanker in this thread as well. I better stop now for fear of being labelled a princess again.

GameHED · Post by **GameHED** » 09 Dec 2011 06:10 pm

BruceCamblzChin wrote:Nup, GH is.

People will not understand this today but maybe after all the werewolves and vamps are able to finally shapeshift back into their native forms again they will realise that david icke was right about the invisible world outside this holograhpic universe our brains were locked/tuned into viewing as the only one in existence:
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/ce ... 6179096323" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

related article:
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/pr ... 6178904138" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

witchcraft, ancient rituals worshipping the sun, and human sacrifice is all going to be the norm imo in the future. I believe kids todays will end up being the masters of manipulating the energies icke talks about using genetic manipulation. (like an army of wizards is being created after the UN finally moves all the humans into tightly packed buildings and no land ownership is permittted.)

It's all happening very slowly. All the secret knowledge is being revealed to make people more attuned to these energies and to become like the wood elves in rpg games and fantasy books. (they are the hippies making the materialistic dwarves' life difficult as they battle for conntrol over earth)

Vzzzbx · Post by **Vzzzbx** » 09 Dec 2011 06:18 pm

So who will you blame for trashing this thread now? Bruce? He's doing nothing. Blame him.

GameHED · Post by **GameHED** » 09 Dec 2011 06:46 pm

It's called the black awakening. Read the book. or view:

The two above links in the previous post are related to the topic of global warming:
the elite want to rewild earth which means previous owners of the property will have all thier land taken on the phony basis that the world is dying. This is serious because it means the greens can steal anything they want and rob people. It's a scam vzzbx. Artificial scarcity of resources is how you can manipulate groups into killing each other off. Old tactics different day. In ancient times people used magick (russ calls them "psi-warriors") to control the weather. It's just a matter of power. I knew you wouldn't take it seriously. All this stuff relates to the warnings in the book of revelations where the antichrist will reign supreme and perform miracles in front of the people and weaponise demonic powers.

Vzzzbx · Post by **Vzzzbx** » 09 Dec 2011 06:51 pm

FUCK OFF

GameHED · Post by **GameHED** » 09 Dec 2011 06:55 pm

It is serious. NOT A JOKE. It's weird how indigenous people totally accept this stuff but whites think it is all some joke. A lot of wars like WWII were not just physical battles. Much of what hitler and nazis were influenced by was the occult powers they were into. Similarly the future people will gradually realise all this stuff to be real. There are groups who want to control what you think, who you worship, what you believe in. It's a spiritual battle and those who do not accept the new age, will be discriminated against if you don't join them in thier worship of thier leader. (prophecised to rule over globally)

We are seeing the early stages of this plan right now. The old system is being collapsed to bring us into a NWO where all the authority is centralised in prep for their leader to step into position. All the churches have been infiltrated and dumbed down and weakened.

People: it's a religion that is why they have thier own version of the ten commandments (georgia guidestones where the planet is higher in value than humans - this is idol worship. They will commit genocide/human sacrifice to the goddess "Gaia", which is where planned parenthood comes in and this need to limit how many babies you can have. It's got nothing to do with protecting the environment. It's part of a human sacrifice ritual for their leader. Using eugenics, planning your breeding limits and confiscating the land = part of this plan to limit humans growth.)

Vzzzbx · Post by **Vzzzbx** » 09 Dec 2011 07:03 pm

Wait, so how many people were naked and how many were just watching?

The Games Ranch