Gary Johnson to get Statue?...

[Trevor Wilson]

On 20/09/2021 5:52 am, Rod Speed wrote:

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
keithr0 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

**Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains,
who is
incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.

** That that describes the TW ratbag  quite well.

  > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.

** Massive understatement

  >Too old. HOWEVER, there  was a worse choice for POTUS:

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name


** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.

**We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is
the most
insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And
yes,
that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo
is worse.


** For the uninformed:

1.   TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
decades.

**\"besotted\", \"for two decades\"? Try FIVE decades. I\'ve been
reading everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since
the early 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite
mathematician, Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th
century. That hypothesis was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the
end of the 19th century. Despite more than 100 years of trying,
deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump,
et al) of AGW theory have been unable to prove Arrhenius wrong.
AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the subject with me, I
am always ready.

2.   The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.

**Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both
believe that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives
in the sky and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire
history of humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to
show that such a monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person
who subscribes to such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel
that such a monster exists, then you need to seek psycho-therapy.

3.   So he has an overwhelming need to hate them -  just to keep
face.

**\"Hate\"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably
incapable of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up
badly. I don\'t \"hate\" them. I am, however, profoundly
disappointed in those morons who kept them in government.

4.   TW  is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
5.   TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.

**What \"extreme ideas\" do you refer to? AGW theory? You\'re on
VERY thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In
the mean time, spend a little effort here:

www.ippc.ch

The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,

There is no \"if\".

Wrong.

Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation
wise.

Easy to claim.

the world worked fine when the romans were growing
grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.

Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.

The romans didn’t need that.

However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
Victoria is a good thing,

That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
to believe that it would happen now.

How do you know that it wasn\'t seen then? The local inhabitants of
the time weren\'t very good at record keeping.

In fairness to Rod, average temperatures are hotter now than at any
time in human history.

There is no evidence of that.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Common_Era_Temperature.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:20200324_Global_average_temperature_-_NASA-GISS_HadCrut_NOAA_Japan_BerkeleyE.svg

It is highly unlikely that Victorian Aboriginals experienced such
temperature extremes. That will be our descendants\' futures.

Easy to hysterically claim.

**Nope. It\'s all about the science. You know, the stuff you don\'t
understand and ignore.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 20/09/2021 5:52 am, Rod Speed wrote:

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
keithr0 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

**Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains,
who is
incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.

** That that describes the TW ratbag  quite well.

  > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.

** Massive understatement

  >Too old. HOWEVER, there  was a worse choice for POTUS:

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name


** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.

**We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is
the most
insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And
yes,
that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo
is worse.


** For the uninformed:

1.   TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
decades.

**\"besotted\", \"for two decades\"? Try FIVE decades. I\'ve been
reading everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since
the early 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite
mathematician, Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th
century. That hypothesis was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the
end of the 19th century. Despite more than 100 years of trying,
deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump,
et al) of AGW theory have been unable to prove Arrhenius wrong.
AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the subject with me, I
am always ready.

2.   The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.

**Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both
believe that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives
in the sky and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire
history of humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to
show that such a monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person
who subscribes to such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel
that such a monster exists, then you need to seek psycho-therapy.

3.   So he has an overwhelming need to hate them -  just to keep
face.

**\"Hate\"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably
incapable of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up
badly. I don\'t \"hate\" them. I am, however, profoundly
disappointed in those morons who kept them in government.

4.   TW  is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
5.   TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.

**What \"extreme ideas\" do you refer to? AGW theory? You\'re on
VERY thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In
the mean time, spend a little effort here:

www.ippc.ch

The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,

There is no \"if\".

Wrong.

Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation
wise.

Easy to claim.

the world worked fine when the romans were growing
grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.

Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.

The romans didn’t need that.

However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
Victoria is a good thing,

That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
to believe that it would happen now.

How do you know that it wasn\'t seen then? The local inhabitants of
the time weren\'t very good at record keeping.

In fairness to Rod, average temperatures are hotter now than at any
time in human history.

There is no evidence of that.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Common_Era_Temperature.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:20200324_Global_average_temperature_-_NASA-GISS_HadCrut_NOAA_Japan_BerkeleyE.svg

It is highly unlikely that Victorian Aboriginals experienced such
temperature extremes. That will be our descendants\' futures.

Easy to hysterically claim.

**Nope. It\'s all about the science. You know, the stuff you don\'t
understand and ignore.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 20/09/2021 5:45 am, Rod Speed wrote:

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

**Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains,
who is
incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.

** That that describes the TW ratbag  quite well.

  > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.

** Massive understatement

  >Too old. HOWEVER, there  was a worse choice for POTUS:

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name


** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.

**We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is
the most
insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And
yes,
that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is
worse.


** For the uninformed:

1.   TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
decades.

**\"besotted\", \"for two decades\"? Try FIVE decades. I\'ve been
reading everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since
the early 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite
mathematician, Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th
century. That hypothesis was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the
end of the 19th century. Despite more than 100 years of trying,
deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump,
et al) of AGW theory have been unable to prove Arrhenius wrong.
AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the subject with me, I
am always ready.

2.   The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.

**Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both
believe that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives
in the sky and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire
history of humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to
show that such a monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person
who subscribes to such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel
that such a monster exists, then you need to seek psycho-therapy.

3.   So he has an overwhelming need to hate them -  just to keep
face.

**\"Hate\"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable
of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don\'t
\"hate\" them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those
morons who kept them in government.

4.   TW  is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
5.   TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.

**What \"extreme ideas\" do you refer to? AGW theory? You\'re on VERY
thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the
mean time, spend a little effort here:

www.ippc.ch

The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,

There is no \"if\".

Wrong.

Nope. Correct.

We\'ll see...

**There is no \"we\'ll see\'. We are already seeing it.

Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

Bullshit.

Fact.

**Then YOU need to cite where \"those same people (who are studying AGW
theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling\".

The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

The guys who were babbling on about \'global cooling\' were the
imaginative writers of Time Magazine:

Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on about.

**No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of note.
It is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as credible as
a Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.

 NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.

Wrong, as always.

**Then present your evidence.

As I stated before:

Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
temperatures more than 100 years ago.

How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
and haven\'t returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

**What the fuck are you smoking. I don\'t give a fuck about weather
conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.
You\'re talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck\'s sake.
Climatology is concerned with AVERAGE climate conditions on a
planet-wide scale. To put that into perspective, England represents
1/4000th the surface area of this planet. Four fifths of fuck-all.

1.1 degrees C AVERAGE temperature rise is both measurable and significant.

Here is a record of temperatures for the past 2,000 years. Planet-wide,
NOT a minuscule 1/4000th section of the planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

NOT ONCE, in the intervening 120-odd years, has any credible evidence
been put forward to disprove Arrhenius\' theory.

What I just stated blows it completely out of the fucking water.

**How? You cite a bunch of drunken Italians planting grapes as evidence
of something?

You\'re kidding.

If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like
the one that Arrhenius won.

Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
on the planet is wrong.

That claim is pure bullshit.

**Nup. Fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation
wise.

Easy to claim.

Of course it\'s easy to claim. The evidence is utterly and completely
overwhelming.

More bullshit with the fact that the average temperatures have
done nothing even remotely like what the CO2 levels have done.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
way it happens, the two events are closely linked.

the world worked fine when the romans were growing
grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.

Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.

The romans didn’t need that.

In Greenland?

In europe.

**Then stop babbling on about Greenland. I still don\'t know why you are
babbling on about a bunch of drunken Italians growing grapes in an
insignificant corner of the planet, but I guess it means something to you.

First I heard about that. Grapes are grown all over the place.
Including Australia. They\'ve been grown in England for many hundreds
of years.

But at nothing like the level the romans did in england.

**Again: Who gives a fuck what drunken Italians were doing a couple of
thousand years ago in an insignificant corner of the planet?

I am unsurprised that the Romans planted grape vines. They were
partial to the odd glass/jug of wine.

And the climate in england then made that very viable.

**OK.

Then it later wasn’t.

**OK.

Like I said: What happened in an insignificant corner of the planet a
couple of thousand years ago, is irrelevant.

Just throwing it out there, but the possible reason why the Poms stopped
growing grapes, is because the drunken Italians left and the Poms went
back to beer. And, if you\'ve ever tasted Pommy wines, you\'ll understand
why the Poms drink beer.

However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
Victoria is a good thing,

That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
to believe that it would happen now.

\"Now\"? Nope. In  a 100 or so years? As we rapidly approach the
\'tipping point\',

There is no evidence of any tipping point.

**That\'s because we have not reached it yet. However, there is evidence
that the tipping point is being approached:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/massive-craters-in-siberia-are-exploding-into-existence-whats-causing-them

As you are no doubt aware, methane is around 20 TIMES more potent as a
GHG than CO2. There are billions of Tonnes of CO2 in permafrost regions.
As the methane is released, then greenhouse effects will increase. This
will lead to more warming and more methane release. Allied with this,
will be the release of CO2 from the oceans, as the oceans warm further.
At some point, the effect will be impossible to reverse. Then we will be
fucked.

it is absolutely possible.

How odd that that never happened even when the
CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.

**You really have done zero research, haven\'t you? NOT ONE TEENY TINY
BIT. Look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

CO2 levels were estimated to be thousands of ppm 50 million years ago.

then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.

More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.

Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.

Don’t need to, we didn’t see 60 degree C days when the CO2 levels
were much higher than they are today. Its just your silly straw man.

**Actually, that is bullshit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

I hasten to add that no human was alive when CO2 levels and temps were
that high.

No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.

Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.

That shutting down the use of coal and fossil fuels.

No point in doing anything that stupid.

Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to rise
at a faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past million years.

Pity we didn’t see 60C even when the CO2
levels were much higher than they are now.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

That said, it is correct to say that CO2 levels are higher today than at
any time in (at least) the past million years. Same with temperatures.

There are lots of viable alternatives.

No need for them.

There\'s no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels, as
there are viable alternatives.

You stupidly refuse the much more viable alternative, nukes.

**IF the morons running this country decided TODAY, to build a nuke, it
would not be generating power for 20 years. In 20 years, we could fill a
tiny corner of SA, WA and NT with solar PV and generate enough power to
satisfy the entire planet\'s needs for electricity. We could be an energy
exporter. Fortunately, we have some forward thinking entrepreneurs in
this country:

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/northern-territory-to-become-home-to-the-worlds-largest-solar-farm/

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 20/09/2021 5:52 am, Rod Speed wrote:

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
keithr0 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

**Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains,
who is
incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.

** That that describes the TW ratbag  quite well.

  > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.

** Massive understatement

  >Too old. HOWEVER, there  was a worse choice for POTUS:

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name


** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.

**We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is
the most
insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And
yes,
that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo
is worse.


** For the uninformed:

1.   TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
decades.

**\"besotted\", \"for two decades\"? Try FIVE decades. I\'ve been
reading everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since
the early 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite
mathematician, Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th
century. That hypothesis was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the
end of the 19th century. Despite more than 100 years of trying,
deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump,
et al) of AGW theory have been unable to prove Arrhenius wrong.
AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the subject with me, I
am always ready.

2.   The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.

**Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both
believe that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives
in the sky and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire
history of humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to
show that such a monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person
who subscribes to such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel
that such a monster exists, then you need to seek psycho-therapy.

3.   So he has an overwhelming need to hate them -  just to keep
face.

**\"Hate\"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably
incapable of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up
badly. I don\'t \"hate\" them. I am, however, profoundly
disappointed in those morons who kept them in government.

4.   TW  is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
5.   TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.

**What \"extreme ideas\" do you refer to? AGW theory? You\'re on
VERY thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In
the mean time, spend a little effort here:

www.ippc.ch

The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,

There is no \"if\".

Wrong.

Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation
wise.

Easy to claim.

the world worked fine when the romans were growing
grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.

Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.

The romans didn’t need that.

However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
Victoria is a good thing,

That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
to believe that it would happen now.

How do you know that it wasn\'t seen then? The local inhabitants of
the time weren\'t very good at record keeping.

In fairness to Rod, average temperatures are hotter now than at any
time in human history.

There is no evidence of that.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#/media/File:Common_Era_Temperature.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:20200324_Global_average_temperature_-_NASA-GISS_HadCrut_NOAA_Japan_BerkeleyE.svg

It is highly unlikely that Victorian Aboriginals experienced such
temperature extremes. That will be our descendants\' futures.

Easy to hysterically claim.

**Nope. It\'s all about the science. You know, the stuff you don\'t
understand and ignore.

 

[Phil Allison]

Trevor Wilson Rabid Lunatic wrote:
===========================>

Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time..

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

Bullshit.

Fact.
**Then YOU need to cite where \"those same people (who are studying AGW
theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling\".

The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

** \" Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time. \"

Those \"guys\" were aka \" climate alarmists \".

The guys who were babbling on about \'global cooling\' were the
imaginative writers of Time Magazine:

Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on about.

**No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

** Its not a women\'s mag either, so what.

How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
and haven\'t returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

**What the fuck are you smoking. I don\'t give a fuck about weather
conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.
You\'re talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck\'s sake.

** Errr - the \"Roman Warm Period\" covered the whole of Europe and lasted 650 years.
Google it.

Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
way it happens, the two events are closely linked.

** It proves the EXACT opposite !!

Causes *cannot* come along after the effect.
=====================================

...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

Trevor Wilson Rabid Lunatic wrote:
===========================>

Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time..

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

Bullshit.

Fact.
**Then YOU need to cite where \"those same people (who are studying AGW
theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling\".

The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

** \" Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time. \"

Those \"guys\" were aka \" climate alarmists \".

The guys who were babbling on about \'global cooling\' were the
imaginative writers of Time Magazine:

Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on about.

**No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

** Its not a women\'s mag either, so what.

How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
and haven\'t returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

**What the fuck are you smoking. I don\'t give a fuck about weather
conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.
You\'re talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck\'s sake.

** Errr - the \"Roman Warm Period\" covered the whole of Europe and lasted 650 years.
Google it.

Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
way it happens, the two events are closely linked.

** It proves the EXACT opposite !!

Causes *cannot* come along after the effect.
=====================================

...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

Trevor Wilson Rabid Lunatic wrote:
===========================>

Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time..

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

Bullshit.

Fact.
**Then YOU need to cite where \"those same people (who are studying AGW
theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling\".

The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

** \" Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time. \"

Those \"guys\" were aka \" climate alarmists \".

The guys who were babbling on about \'global cooling\' were the
imaginative writers of Time Magazine:

Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on about.

**No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

** Its not a women\'s mag either, so what.

How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
and haven\'t returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

**What the fuck are you smoking. I don\'t give a fuck about weather
conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.
You\'re talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck\'s sake.

** Errr - the \"Roman Warm Period\" covered the whole of Europe and lasted 650 years.
Google it.

Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
way it happens, the two events are closely linked.

** It proves the EXACT opposite !!

Causes *cannot* come along after the effect.
=====================================

...... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 20/09/2021 9:27 am, Phil Allison wrote:

Trevor Wilson Rabid Lunatic wrote:
============================

Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

Bullshit.

Fact.
**Then YOU need to cite where \"those same people (who are studying AGW
theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling\".

The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

** \" Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time. \"

Those \"guys\" were aka \" climate alarmists \".

**If you meant to say: Highly qualified climate SCIENTISTS, then I
agree. The first one was Arrhenius. His proof that CO2 was a cause of
warming has never been challenged successfully. Not once, not ever. If
you and Rod think you can, then have at it.

The guys who were babbling on about \'global cooling\' were the
imaginative writers of Time Magazine:

Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on about.

**No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

** Its not a women\'s mag either, so what.

**Time Magazine was the one that published the bogus \'global cooling\'
nonsense.

How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
and haven\'t returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

**What the fuck are you smoking. I don\'t give a fuck about weather
conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.
You\'re talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck\'s sake.

** Errr - the \"Roman Warm Period\" covered the whole of Europe and lasted 650 years.
Google it.

**Again: LOCAL climate variations are not significant. Europe is local.
England, more so. More importantly, scientists are uncertain of the
causes of such a localised climate variation. OTOH, climate scientists
KNOW why the planet has warmed since the start of the industrial
revolution. Fourier supplied the hypothesis. Arrhenius developed a
credible theory, which has never been challenged.

Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
way it happens, the two events are closely linked.

** It proves the EXACT opposite !!

Causes *cannot* come along after the effect.
======================================

**Here\'s the thing:

Sometimes temperatures on this planet have risen for various reasons.
Increasing Solar flux, for instance. Sometimes temperatures have risen
due to increases in GHGs. When CO2 levels rise, temperatures follow.
Always. When temperatures rise, CO2 levels follow. Always.

Right now and for the past couple of centuries, we have witnessed a
rapid rise in CO2 levels. Temperature rise has followed. As temperatures
rise still further, we will witness a rise in CO2 outgassing from the
oceans (as they, too, warm). No mystery there. We are also witnessing a
rapid increase in methane from permafrost regions as they warm. The
methane release is VERY serious, as methane is roughly 20 times more
potent a GHG than CO2. Fortunately, methane does not last as long as CO2
in the atmosphere (roughly 20 years vs. 1,000 years), but there is a
large amount buried.

So, it kinda goes like this:

CO2 rise > temperature rise
Temperature rise > CO2 levels rise
CO2 rise > temperature rise
Temperature rise > methane levels AND CO2 levels rise
Methane and CO2 rise > temperature rise.

The positive feedback effects continue.

 

[Phil Allison]

Trevor Wilson Rabid Lunatic wrote:
===========================>

Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time..

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

Bullshit.

Fact.
**Then YOU need to cite where \"those same people (who are studying AGW
theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling\".

The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

** \" Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time. \"

Those \"guys\" were aka \" climate alarmists \".

The guys who were babbling on about \'global cooling\' were the
imaginative writers of Time Magazine:

Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on about.

**No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

** Its not a women\'s mag either, so what.

How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
and haven\'t returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

**What the fuck are you smoking. I don\'t give a fuck about weather
conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.
You\'re talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck\'s sake.

** Errr - the \"Roman Warm Period\" covered the whole of Europe and lasted 650 years.
Google it.

Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
way it happens, the two events are closely linked.

** It proves the EXACT opposite !!

Causes *cannot* come along after the effect.
=====================================

...... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 20/09/2021 9:27 am, Phil Allison wrote:

Trevor Wilson Rabid Lunatic wrote:
============================

Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

Bullshit.

Fact.
**Then YOU need to cite where \"those same people (who are studying AGW
theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling\".

The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

** \" Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time. \"

Those \"guys\" were aka \" climate alarmists \".

**If you meant to say: Highly qualified climate SCIENTISTS, then I
agree. The first one was Arrhenius. His proof that CO2 was a cause of
warming has never been challenged successfully. Not once, not ever. If
you and Rod think you can, then have at it.

The guys who were babbling on about \'global cooling\' were the
imaginative writers of Time Magazine:

Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on about.

**No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

** Its not a women\'s mag either, so what.

**Time Magazine was the one that published the bogus \'global cooling\'
nonsense.

How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
and haven\'t returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

**What the fuck are you smoking. I don\'t give a fuck about weather
conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.
You\'re talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck\'s sake.

** Errr - the \"Roman Warm Period\" covered the whole of Europe and lasted 650 years.
Google it.

**Again: LOCAL climate variations are not significant. Europe is local.
England, more so. More importantly, scientists are uncertain of the
causes of such a localised climate variation. OTOH, climate scientists
KNOW why the planet has warmed since the start of the industrial
revolution. Fourier supplied the hypothesis. Arrhenius developed a
credible theory, which has never been challenged.

Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
way it happens, the two events are closely linked.

** It proves the EXACT opposite !!

Causes *cannot* come along after the effect.
======================================

**Here\'s the thing:

Sometimes temperatures on this planet have risen for various reasons.
Increasing Solar flux, for instance. Sometimes temperatures have risen
due to increases in GHGs. When CO2 levels rise, temperatures follow.
Always. When temperatures rise, CO2 levels follow. Always.

Right now and for the past couple of centuries, we have witnessed a
rapid rise in CO2 levels. Temperature rise has followed. As temperatures
rise still further, we will witness a rise in CO2 outgassing from the
oceans (as they, too, warm). No mystery there. We are also witnessing a
rapid increase in methane from permafrost regions as they warm. The
methane release is VERY serious, as methane is roughly 20 times more
potent a GHG than CO2. Fortunately, methane does not last as long as CO2
in the atmosphere (roughly 20 years vs. 1,000 years), but there is a
large amount buried.

So, it kinda goes like this:

CO2 rise > temperature rise
Temperature rise > CO2 levels rise
CO2 rise > temperature rise
Temperature rise > methane levels AND CO2 levels rise
Methane and CO2 rise > temperature rise.

The positive feedback effects continue.

 

[Rod Speed]

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

**Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who
is
incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.

** That that describes the TW ratbag quite well.

My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.

** Massive understatement

Too old. HOWEVER, there was a worse choice for POTUS:

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name

** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.

**We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is the
most
insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And
yes,
that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is
worse.


** For the uninformed:

1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
decades.

**\"besotted\", \"for two decades\"? Try FIVE decades. I\'ve been reading
everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since the early
1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite mathematician,
Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th century. That hypothesis
was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the end of the 19th century.
Despite more than 100 years of trying, deniers (like Abbott, Scummo,
Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump, et al) of AGW theory have been
unable to prove Arrhenius wrong. AGW theory is solid. If you wish to
debate the subject with me, I am always ready.

2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.

**Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both believe
that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives in the sky
and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire history of
humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to show that such a
monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person who subscribes to
such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel that such a monster
exists, then you need to seek psycho-therapy.

3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep
face.

**\"Hate\"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable
of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don\'t
\"hate\" them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those morons
who kept them in government.

4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.

**What \"extreme ideas\" do you refer to? AGW theory? You\'re on VERY
thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the mean
time, spend a little effort here:

www.ippc.ch

The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,

There is no \"if\".

Wrong.

Nope. Correct.

We\'ll see...

There is no \"we\'ll see\'. We are already seeing it.

No we are not with your hysterical claim about 60C

We haven\'t even seen england returning to the
climate that was there when the romans were
there and clearly civilisation survived that fine.

Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

Bullshit.

Fact.

Then YOU need to cite where \"those same people (who are studying AGW
theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling\".

The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

The guys who were babbling on about \'global cooling\' were the
imaginative writers of Time Magazine:

Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on
about.

No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

There was in fact a hell of a lot more claiming that than one time article.
It was in fact just reporting on what they were claiming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of note. It
is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as credible as a
Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.

NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.

Wrong, as always.

Then present your evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

As I stated before:

Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
temperatures more than 100 years ago.

How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
and haven\'t returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

What the fuck are you smoking. I don\'t give a fuck about weather
conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.

It wasn’t just there or in greenland.

You\'re talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck\'s sake.
Climatology is concerned with AVERAGE climate conditions on a planet-wide
scale. To put that into perspective, England represents 1/4000th the
surface area of this planet. Four fifths of fuck-all.

1.1 degrees C AVERAGE temperature rise is both measurable and significant.

Pity it was more than that when the romans were in england and the
vikings in greenland.

> Here is a record of temperatures for the past 2,000 years.

Pity about before that.

> Planet-wide, NOT a minuscule 1/4000th section of the planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

NOT ONCE, in the intervening 120-odd years, has any credible evidence
been put forward to disprove Arrhenius\' theory.

What I just stated blows it completely out of the fucking water.

**How? You cite a bunch of drunken Italians planting grapes as evidence of
something?

You\'re kidding.

Keep this shit up and you will be ignored.

If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like
the one that Arrhenius won.

Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
on the planet is wrong.

That claim is pure bullshit.

Nup. Fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

Pity about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation
wise.

Easy to claim.

Of course it\'s easy to claim. The evidence is utterly and completely
overwhelming.

More bullshit with the fact that the average temperatures have
done nothing even remotely like what the CO2 levels have done.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise, temperatures
rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Not true about the time when its was well over 600ppm

Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever way
it happens, the two events are closely linked.


the world worked fine when the romans were growing
grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.

Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.

The romans didn’t need that.

In Greenland?

In europe.

Then stop babbling on about Greenland. I still don\'t know why you are
babbling on about a bunch of drunken Italians growing grapes in an
insignificant corner of the planet, but I guess it means something to you.

It’s the evidence that average temps were much higher then
and we survived that fine.

First I heard about that. Grapes are grown all over the place. Including
Australia. They\'ve been grown in England for many hundreds of years.

But at nothing like the level the romans did in england.

**Again: Who gives a fuck what drunken Italians were doing a couple of
thousand years ago in an insignificant corner of the planet?


I am unsurprised that the Romans planted grape vines. They were partial
to the odd glass/jug of wine.

And the climate in england then made that very viable.

**OK.


Then it later wasn’t.

**OK.

Like I said: What happened in an insignificant corner of the planet a
couple of thousand years ago, is irrelevant.

Not when it’s the evidence of much warmer global temps than now.

Just throwing it out there, but the possible reason why the Poms stopped
growing grapes, is because the drunken Italians left and the Poms went
back to beer. And, if you\'ve ever tasted Pommy wines, you\'ll understand
why the Poms drink beer.

Because the climate there is much cooler now than when the romans were
there.

However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
Victoria is a good thing,

That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
to believe that it would happen now.

\"Now\"? Nope. In a 100 or so years? As we rapidly approach the \'tipping
point\',

There is no evidence of any tipping point.

That\'s because we have not reached it yet.

But no evidence that there is any tipping point given that
that wasn’t see when the romans were growing much
better wine in england than is possible now and the
vikings were growing much more in greenland than
is possible now.

> However, there is evidence that the tipping point is being approached:

Bullshit there is.

> https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/massive-craters-in-siberia-are-exploding-into-existence-whats-causing-them

How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

As you are no doubt aware, methane is around 20 TIMES more potent as a GHG
than CO2. There are billions of Tonnes of CO2 in permafrost regions. As
the methane is released, then greenhouse effects will increase. This will
lead to more warming and more methane release. Allied with this, will be
the release of CO2 from the oceans, as the oceans warm further. At some
point, the effect will be impossible to reverse. Then we will be fucked.

How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

it is absolutely possible.

How odd that that never happened even when the
CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.

You really have done zero research, haven\'t you? NOT ONE TEENY TINY BIT.
Look at this:

Don’t need to, that’s what I had researched.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

CO2 levels were estimated to be thousands of ppm 50 million years ago.

What I was referring to.

then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.

More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.

Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.

Don’t need to, we didn’t see 60 degree C days when the CO2 levels
were much higher than they are today. Its just your silly straw man.

Actually, that is bullshit:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

I hasten to add that no human was alive when CO2 levels and temps were
that high.

But plenty of flora and fauna were when the CO2 level was
twice what it is now.

No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.

Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.

That shutting down the use of coal and fossil fuels.

No point in doing anything that stupid.

Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to rise at
a faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past million years.

Pity we didn’t see 60C even when the CO2
levels were much higher than they are now.

Wrong:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

That said, it is correct to say that CO2 levels are higher today than at
any time in (at least) the past million years. Same with temperatures.

Pity that there was plenty of flora and fauna around well before that.

There are lots of viable alternatives.

No need for them.

There\'s no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels, as
there are viable alternatives.

You stupidly refuse the much more viable alternative, nukes.

IF the morons running this country decided TODAY, to build a nuke, it
would not be generating power for 20 years.

That’s bullshit, the chinese build them much quicker than that.

In 20 years, we could fill a tiny corner of SA, WA and NT with solar PV
and generate enough power to satisfy the entire planet\'s needs for
electricity.

But no viable way of getting it to the rest of the world.

> We could be an energy exporter.

Not even to singapore, makes much more
sense to have more nukes there instead.

Fortunately, we have some forward thinking entrepreneurs in this country:

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/northern-territory-to-become-home-to-the-worlds-largest-solar-farm/

Taint gunna happen, you watch.

 

[Rod Speed]

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

**Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who
is
incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.

** That that describes the TW ratbag quite well.

My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.

** Massive understatement

Too old. HOWEVER, there was a worse choice for POTUS:

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name

** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.

**We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is the
most
insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And
yes,
that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is
worse.


** For the uninformed:

1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
decades.

**\"besotted\", \"for two decades\"? Try FIVE decades. I\'ve been reading
everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since the early
1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite mathematician,
Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th century. That hypothesis
was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the end of the 19th century.
Despite more than 100 years of trying, deniers (like Abbott, Scummo,
Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump, et al) of AGW theory have been
unable to prove Arrhenius wrong. AGW theory is solid. If you wish to
debate the subject with me, I am always ready.

2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.

**Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both believe
that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives in the sky
and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire history of
humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to show that such a
monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person who subscribes to
such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel that such a monster
exists, then you need to seek psycho-therapy.

3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep
face.

**\"Hate\"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable
of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don\'t
\"hate\" them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those morons
who kept them in government.

4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.

**What \"extreme ideas\" do you refer to? AGW theory? You\'re on VERY
thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the mean
time, spend a little effort here:

www.ippc.ch

The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,

There is no \"if\".

Wrong.

Nope. Correct.

We\'ll see...

There is no \"we\'ll see\'. We are already seeing it.

No we are not with your hysterical claim about 60C

We haven\'t even seen england returning to the
climate that was there when the romans were
there and clearly civilisation survived that fine.

Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

Bullshit.

Fact.

Then YOU need to cite where \"those same people (who are studying AGW
theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling\".

The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

The guys who were babbling on about \'global cooling\' were the
imaginative writers of Time Magazine:

Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on
about.

No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

There was in fact a hell of a lot more claiming that than one time article.
It was in fact just reporting on what they were claiming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of note. It
is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as credible as a
Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.

NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.

Wrong, as always.

Then present your evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

As I stated before:

Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
temperatures more than 100 years ago.

How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
and haven\'t returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

What the fuck are you smoking. I don\'t give a fuck about weather
conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.

It wasn’t just there or in greenland.

You\'re talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck\'s sake.
Climatology is concerned with AVERAGE climate conditions on a planet-wide
scale. To put that into perspective, England represents 1/4000th the
surface area of this planet. Four fifths of fuck-all.

1.1 degrees C AVERAGE temperature rise is both measurable and significant.

Pity it was more than that when the romans were in england and the
vikings in greenland.

> Here is a record of temperatures for the past 2,000 years.

Pity about before that.

> Planet-wide, NOT a minuscule 1/4000th section of the planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

NOT ONCE, in the intervening 120-odd years, has any credible evidence
been put forward to disprove Arrhenius\' theory.

What I just stated blows it completely out of the fucking water.

**How? You cite a bunch of drunken Italians planting grapes as evidence of
something?

You\'re kidding.

Keep this shit up and you will be ignored.

If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like
the one that Arrhenius won.

Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
on the planet is wrong.

That claim is pure bullshit.

Nup. Fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

Pity about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation
wise.

Easy to claim.

Of course it\'s easy to claim. The evidence is utterly and completely
overwhelming.

More bullshit with the fact that the average temperatures have
done nothing even remotely like what the CO2 levels have done.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise, temperatures
rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Not true about the time when its was well over 600ppm

Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever way
it happens, the two events are closely linked.


the world worked fine when the romans were growing
grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.

Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.

The romans didn’t need that.

In Greenland?

In europe.

Then stop babbling on about Greenland. I still don\'t know why you are
babbling on about a bunch of drunken Italians growing grapes in an
insignificant corner of the planet, but I guess it means something to you.

It’s the evidence that average temps were much higher then
and we survived that fine.

First I heard about that. Grapes are grown all over the place. Including
Australia. They\'ve been grown in England for many hundreds of years.

But at nothing like the level the romans did in england.

**Again: Who gives a fuck what drunken Italians were doing a couple of
thousand years ago in an insignificant corner of the planet?


I am unsurprised that the Romans planted grape vines. They were partial
to the odd glass/jug of wine.

And the climate in england then made that very viable.

**OK.


Then it later wasn’t.

**OK.

Like I said: What happened in an insignificant corner of the planet a
couple of thousand years ago, is irrelevant.

Not when it’s the evidence of much warmer global temps than now.

Just throwing it out there, but the possible reason why the Poms stopped
growing grapes, is because the drunken Italians left and the Poms went
back to beer. And, if you\'ve ever tasted Pommy wines, you\'ll understand
why the Poms drink beer.

Because the climate there is much cooler now than when the romans were
there.

However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
Victoria is a good thing,

That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
to believe that it would happen now.

\"Now\"? Nope. In a 100 or so years? As we rapidly approach the \'tipping
point\',

There is no evidence of any tipping point.

That\'s because we have not reached it yet.

But no evidence that there is any tipping point given that
that wasn’t see when the romans were growing much
better wine in england than is possible now and the
vikings were growing much more in greenland than
is possible now.

> However, there is evidence that the tipping point is being approached:

Bullshit there is.

> https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/massive-craters-in-siberia-are-exploding-into-existence-whats-causing-them

How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

As you are no doubt aware, methane is around 20 TIMES more potent as a GHG
than CO2. There are billions of Tonnes of CO2 in permafrost regions. As
the methane is released, then greenhouse effects will increase. This will
lead to more warming and more methane release. Allied with this, will be
the release of CO2 from the oceans, as the oceans warm further. At some
point, the effect will be impossible to reverse. Then we will be fucked.

How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

it is absolutely possible.

How odd that that never happened even when the
CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.

You really have done zero research, haven\'t you? NOT ONE TEENY TINY BIT.
Look at this:

Don’t need to, that’s what I had researched.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

CO2 levels were estimated to be thousands of ppm 50 million years ago.

What I was referring to.

then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.

More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.

Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.

Don’t need to, we didn’t see 60 degree C days when the CO2 levels
were much higher than they are today. Its just your silly straw man.

Actually, that is bullshit:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

I hasten to add that no human was alive when CO2 levels and temps were
that high.

But plenty of flora and fauna were when the CO2 level was
twice what it is now.

No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.

Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.

That shutting down the use of coal and fossil fuels.

No point in doing anything that stupid.

Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to rise at
a faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past million years.

Pity we didn’t see 60C even when the CO2
levels were much higher than they are now.

Wrong:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

That said, it is correct to say that CO2 levels are higher today than at
any time in (at least) the past million years. Same with temperatures.

Pity that there was plenty of flora and fauna around well before that.

There are lots of viable alternatives.

No need for them.

There\'s no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels, as
there are viable alternatives.

You stupidly refuse the much more viable alternative, nukes.

IF the morons running this country decided TODAY, to build a nuke, it
would not be generating power for 20 years.

That’s bullshit, the chinese build them much quicker than that.

In 20 years, we could fill a tiny corner of SA, WA and NT with solar PV
and generate enough power to satisfy the entire planet\'s needs for
electricity.

But no viable way of getting it to the rest of the world.

> We could be an energy exporter.

Not even to singapore, makes much more
sense to have more nukes there instead.

Fortunately, we have some forward thinking entrepreneurs in this country:

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/northern-territory-to-become-home-to-the-worlds-largest-solar-farm/

Taint gunna happen, you watch.

 

[Rod Speed]

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

**Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains, who
is
incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.

** That that describes the TW ratbag quite well.

My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.

** Massive understatement

Too old. HOWEVER, there was a worse choice for POTUS:

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name

** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.

**We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is the
most
insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And
yes,
that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is
worse.


** For the uninformed:

1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
decades.

**\"besotted\", \"for two decades\"? Try FIVE decades. I\'ve been reading
everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since the early
1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite mathematician,
Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th century. That hypothesis
was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the end of the 19th century.
Despite more than 100 years of trying, deniers (like Abbott, Scummo,
Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump, et al) of AGW theory have been
unable to prove Arrhenius wrong. AGW theory is solid. If you wish to
debate the subject with me, I am always ready.

2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.

**Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both believe
that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives in the sky
and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire history of
humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to show that such a
monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person who subscribes to
such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel that such a monster
exists, then you need to seek psycho-therapy.

3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep
face.

**\"Hate\"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable
of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don\'t
\"hate\" them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those morons
who kept them in government.

4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google it)
5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.

**What \"extreme ideas\" do you refer to? AGW theory? You\'re on VERY
thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the mean
time, spend a little effort here:

www.ippc.ch

The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,

There is no \"if\".

Wrong.

Nope. Correct.

We\'ll see...

There is no \"we\'ll see\'. We are already seeing it.

No we are not with your hysterical claim about 60C

We haven\'t even seen england returning to the
climate that was there when the romans were
there and clearly civilisation survived that fine.

Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

Bullshit.

Fact.

Then YOU need to cite where \"those same people (who are studying AGW
theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling\".

The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

The guys who were babbling on about \'global cooling\' were the
imaginative writers of Time Magazine:

Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on
about.

No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

There was in fact a hell of a lot more claiming that than one time article.
It was in fact just reporting on what they were claiming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of note. It
is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as credible as a
Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.

NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.

Wrong, as always.

Then present your evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

As I stated before:

Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
temperatures more than 100 years ago.

How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
and haven\'t returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

What the fuck are you smoking. I don\'t give a fuck about weather
conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.

It wasn’t just there or in greenland.

You\'re talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck\'s sake.
Climatology is concerned with AVERAGE climate conditions on a planet-wide
scale. To put that into perspective, England represents 1/4000th the
surface area of this planet. Four fifths of fuck-all.

1.1 degrees C AVERAGE temperature rise is both measurable and significant.

Pity it was more than that when the romans were in england and the
vikings in greenland.

> Here is a record of temperatures for the past 2,000 years.

Pity about before that.

> Planet-wide, NOT a minuscule 1/4000th section of the planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

NOT ONCE, in the intervening 120-odd years, has any credible evidence
been put forward to disprove Arrhenius\' theory.

What I just stated blows it completely out of the fucking water.

**How? You cite a bunch of drunken Italians planting grapes as evidence of
something?

You\'re kidding.

Keep this shit up and you will be ignored.

If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like
the one that Arrhenius won.

Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
on the planet is wrong.

That claim is pure bullshit.

Nup. Fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

Pity about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation
wise.

Easy to claim.

Of course it\'s easy to claim. The evidence is utterly and completely
overwhelming.

More bullshit with the fact that the average temperatures have
done nothing even remotely like what the CO2 levels have done.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise, temperatures
rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Not true about the time when its was well over 600ppm

Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever way
it happens, the two events are closely linked.


the world worked fine when the romans were growing
grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.

Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.

The romans didn’t need that.

In Greenland?

In europe.

Then stop babbling on about Greenland. I still don\'t know why you are
babbling on about a bunch of drunken Italians growing grapes in an
insignificant corner of the planet, but I guess it means something to you.

It’s the evidence that average temps were much higher then
and we survived that fine.

First I heard about that. Grapes are grown all over the place. Including
Australia. They\'ve been grown in England for many hundreds of years.

But at nothing like the level the romans did in england.

**Again: Who gives a fuck what drunken Italians were doing a couple of
thousand years ago in an insignificant corner of the planet?


I am unsurprised that the Romans planted grape vines. They were partial
to the odd glass/jug of wine.

And the climate in england then made that very viable.

**OK.


Then it later wasn’t.

**OK.

Like I said: What happened in an insignificant corner of the planet a
couple of thousand years ago, is irrelevant.

Not when it’s the evidence of much warmer global temps than now.

Just throwing it out there, but the possible reason why the Poms stopped
growing grapes, is because the drunken Italians left and the Poms went
back to beer. And, if you\'ve ever tasted Pommy wines, you\'ll understand
why the Poms drink beer.

Because the climate there is much cooler now than when the romans were
there.

However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
Victoria is a good thing,

That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
to believe that it would happen now.

\"Now\"? Nope. In a 100 or so years? As we rapidly approach the \'tipping
point\',

There is no evidence of any tipping point.

That\'s because we have not reached it yet.

But no evidence that there is any tipping point given that
that wasn’t see when the romans were growing much
better wine in england than is possible now and the
vikings were growing much more in greenland than
is possible now.

> However, there is evidence that the tipping point is being approached:

Bullshit there is.

> https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/massive-craters-in-siberia-are-exploding-into-existence-whats-causing-them

How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

As you are no doubt aware, methane is around 20 TIMES more potent as a GHG
than CO2. There are billions of Tonnes of CO2 in permafrost regions. As
the methane is released, then greenhouse effects will increase. This will
lead to more warming and more methane release. Allied with this, will be
the release of CO2 from the oceans, as the oceans warm further. At some
point, the effect will be impossible to reverse. Then we will be fucked.

How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

it is absolutely possible.

How odd that that never happened even when the
CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.

You really have done zero research, haven\'t you? NOT ONE TEENY TINY BIT.
Look at this:

Don’t need to, that’s what I had researched.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

CO2 levels were estimated to be thousands of ppm 50 million years ago.

What I was referring to.

then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.

More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.

Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.

Don’t need to, we didn’t see 60 degree C days when the CO2 levels
were much higher than they are today. Its just your silly straw man.

Actually, that is bullshit:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

I hasten to add that no human was alive when CO2 levels and temps were
that high.

But plenty of flora and fauna were when the CO2 level was
twice what it is now.

No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.

Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.

That shutting down the use of coal and fossil fuels.

No point in doing anything that stupid.

Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to rise at
a faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past million years.

Pity we didn’t see 60C even when the CO2
levels were much higher than they are now.

Wrong:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

That said, it is correct to say that CO2 levels are higher today than at
any time in (at least) the past million years. Same with temperatures.

Pity that there was plenty of flora and fauna around well before that.

There are lots of viable alternatives.

No need for them.

There\'s no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels, as
there are viable alternatives.

You stupidly refuse the much more viable alternative, nukes.

IF the morons running this country decided TODAY, to build a nuke, it
would not be generating power for 20 years.

That’s bullshit, the chinese build them much quicker than that.

In 20 years, we could fill a tiny corner of SA, WA and NT with solar PV
and generate enough power to satisfy the entire planet\'s needs for
electricity.

But no viable way of getting it to the rest of the world.

> We could be an energy exporter.

Not even to singapore, makes much more
sense to have more nukes there instead.

Fortunately, we have some forward thinking entrepreneurs in this country:

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/northern-territory-to-become-home-to-the-worlds-largest-solar-farm/

Taint gunna happen, you watch.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 20/09/2021 10:06 am, Rod Speed wrote:

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

**Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains,
who is
incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.

** That that describes the TW ratbag  quite well.

  > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.

** Massive understatement

  >Too old. HOWEVER, there  was a worse choice for POTUS:

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name


** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.

**We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is
the most
insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office.
And yes,
that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo
is worse.


** For the uninformed:

1.   TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
decades.

**\"besotted\", \"for two decades\"? Try FIVE decades. I\'ve been
reading everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since
the early 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite
mathematician, Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th
century. That hypothesis was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the
end of the 19th century. Despite more than 100 years of trying,
deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch,
Trump, et al) of AGW theory have been unable to prove Arrhenius
wrong. AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the subject
with me, I am always ready.

2.   The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.

**Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both
believe that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives
in the sky and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire
history of humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to
show that such a monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person
who subscribes to such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you
feel that such a monster exists, then you need to seek
psycho-therapy.

3.   So he has an overwhelming need to hate them -  just to
keep face.

**\"Hate\"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably
incapable of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up
badly. I don\'t \"hate\" them. I am, however, profoundly
disappointed in those morons who kept them in government.

4.   TW  is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google
it)
5.   TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.

**What \"extreme ideas\" do you refer to? AGW theory? You\'re on
VERY thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In
the mean time, spend a little effort here:

www.ippc.ch

The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,

There is no \"if\".

Wrong.

Nope. Correct.

We\'ll see...

There is no \"we\'ll see\'. We are already seeing it.

No we are not with your hysterical claim about 60C

**\"WE\" won\'t see 60 degree C heatwave days, but those who come after us
will.

We haven\'t even seen england returning to the
climate that was there when the romans were
there and clearly civilisation survived that fine.

**Are you STILL blathering on about a bunch of drunken Italians, in an
insignificant corner of the planet?

Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

Bullshit.

Fact.

Then YOU need to cite where \"those same people (who are studying AGW
theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling\".

The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

**The first para from YOUR cite:

\"Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of
imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive
glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing.
Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;
these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time,
which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
greenhouse effect.[1]\"

\'Global cooling\' was bullshit then and it is bullshit now. Since
Arrhenius proved the connection between CO2 and rising temperatures, no
climate scientist has bought into your bullshit.

The guys who were babbling on about \'global cooling\' were the
imaginative writers of Time Magazine:

Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on
about.

No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

There was in fact a hell of a lot more claiming that than one time article.
It was in fact just reporting on what they were claiming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

**Who is \"they\"?

A bunch of idiots? Not interested in what idiots think about AGW.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of
note. It is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as
credible as a Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.

 NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.

Wrong, as always.

Then present your evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

**The first para:

\"Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of
imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive
glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing.
Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;
these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time,
which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
greenhouse effect.[1]\"

As I stated before:

Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
temperatures more than 100 years ago.

How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
and haven\'t returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

What the fuck are you smoking. I don\'t give a fuck about weather
conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.

It wasn’t just there or in greenland.

**And yet, you blather on about a bunch of drunken Italians in England.

You\'re talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck\'s
sake. Climatology is concerned with AVERAGE climate conditions on a
planet-wide scale. To put that into perspective, England represents
1/4000th the surface area of this planet. Four fifths of fuck-all.

1.1 degrees C AVERAGE temperature rise is both measurable and
significant.

Pity it was more than that when the romans were in england and the
vikings in greenland.

**Again: Local climate effects are not the issue. Planet-wide climate is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"

Our climate is warmer today, than it was in 2000. Therefore, the
temporary, local warming back then, was cooler than it is today.

Here is a record of temperatures for the past 2,000 years.

Pity about before that.

Planet-wide, NOT a minuscule 1/4000th section of the planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

NOT ONCE, in the intervening 120-odd years, has any credible
evidence been put forward to disprove Arrhenius\' theory.

What I just stated blows it completely out of the fucking water.

**How? You cite a bunch of drunken Italians planting grapes as
evidence of something?

You\'re kidding.

Keep this shit up and you will be ignored.

**Oh dear. You have me scared now.

If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize,
like the one that Arrhenius won.

Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate
scientist on the planet is wrong.

That claim is pure bullshit.

Nup. Fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

Pity about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

**The first para:

\"Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of
imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive
glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing.
Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;
these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time,
which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
greenhouse effect.[1]\"

Conjecture:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conjecture

\"the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient
evidence for proof.
an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
Obsolete. the interpretation of signs or omens.
verb (used with object), con·jec·tured, con·jec·tur·ing.
to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure
reliability.
verb (used without object), con·jec·tured, con·jec·tur·ing.
to form conjectures.\"

AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and
observation wise.

Easy to claim.

Of course it\'s easy to claim. The evidence is utterly and completely
overwhelming.

More bullshit with the fact that the average temperatures have
done nothing even remotely like what the CO2 levels have done.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg


Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Not true about the time when its was well over 600ppm

**OK. When did that occur?
What was the average temperature of the planet when CO2 levels were that
high?

Cite please.

Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
way it happens, the two events are closely linked.


the world worked fine when the romans were growing
grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.

Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.

The romans didn’t need that.

In Greenland?

In europe.

Then stop babbling on about Greenland. I still don\'t know why you are
babbling on about a bunch of drunken Italians growing grapes in an
insignificant corner of the planet, but I guess it means something to
you.

It’s the evidence that average temps were much higher then
and we survived that fine.

**It\'s evidence that average temps were somewhat COOLER than they were
today.

First I heard about that. Grapes are grown all over the place.
Including Australia. They\'ve been grown in England for many hundreds
of years.

But at nothing like the level the romans did in england.

**Again: Who gives a fuck what drunken Italians were doing a couple of
thousand years ago in an insignificant corner of the planet?


I am unsurprised that the Romans planted grape vines. They were
partial to the odd glass/jug of wine.

And the climate in england then made that very viable.

**OK.


Then it later wasn’t.

**OK.

Like I said: What happened in an insignificant corner of the planet a
couple of thousand years ago, is irrelevant.

Not when it’s the evidence of much warmer global temps than now.

**Incorrect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"

Just throwing it out there, but the possible reason why the Poms
stopped growing grapes, is because the drunken Italians left and the
Poms went back to beer. And, if you\'ve ever tasted Pommy wines, you\'ll
understand why the Poms drink beer.

Because the climate there is much cooler now than when the romans were
there.

**Incorrect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"

However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
Victoria is a good thing,

That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
to believe that it would happen now.

\"Now\"? Nope. In  a 100 or so years? As we rapidly approach the
\'tipping point\',

There is no evidence of any tipping point.

That\'s because we have not reached it yet.

But no evidence that there is any tipping point given that
that wasn’t see when the romans were growing much
better wine in england than is possible now and the
vikings were growing much more in greenland than
is possible now.

**That\'s because CO2 was not responsible for the temporary warming
experienced back when the drunken Italians were wandering around Europe.
It is not known with any precision why the warming occurred back then.

However, there is evidence that the tipping point is being approached:

Bullshit there is.

**OK. You tell me:

What magical mechanism exists to cause the present warming to cease?

Take as much time and space as you need to respond.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/massive-craters-in-siberia-are-exploding-into-existence-whats-causing-them


How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

**The Poms are good at beer and crap at wine. It\'s a cultural thing, not
a climate thing. The drunken Italians prefer their own particular crap
wine. The French, Aussies and Americans are best at making decent wine.
Sometimes the Germans do a good drop. And the Kiwis. The Poms? Nup. Never.

As you are no doubt aware, methane is around 20 TIMES more potent as a
GHG than CO2. There are billions of Tonnes of CO2 in permafrost
regions. As the methane is released, then greenhouse effects will
increase. This will lead to more warming and more methane release.
Allied with this, will be the release of CO2 from the oceans, as the
oceans warm further. At some point, the effect will be impossible to
reverse. Then we will be fucked.

How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

**And once more: A LOCALISED climate change is not a planet-wide one.

it is absolutely possible.

How odd that that never happened even when the
CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.

You really have done zero research, haven\'t you? NOT ONE TEENY TINY
BIT. Look at this:

Don’t need to, that’s what I had researched.

**You not only have to research more, but you need to read your own
damned cites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg


CO2 levels were estimated to be thousands of ppm 50 million years ago.

What I was referring to.

**Points:

* Humans didn\'t exist back then.
* It was MUCH hotter back then.

then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.

More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.

Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.

Don’t need to, we didn’t see 60 degree C days when the CO2 levels
were much higher than they are today. Its just your silly straw man.

Actually, that is bullshit:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

**Cite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

I hasten to add that no human was alive when CO2 levels and temps were
that high.

But plenty of flora and fauna were when the CO2 level was
twice what it is now.

**And it was MUCH hotter. Tell me: How long would it take for humans to
evolve to deal with temperatures that high? How long would it take to
develop crops and animals to survive those temps?

No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.

Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.

That shutting down the use of coal and fossil fuels.

No point in doing anything that stupid.

Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to
rise at a faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past
million years.

Pity we didn’t see 60C even when the CO2
levels were much higher than they are now.

Wrong:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

**Cite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

That said, it is correct to say that CO2 levels are higher today than
at any time in (at least) the past million years. Same with temperatures.

Pity that there was plenty of flora and fauna around well before that.

**Could humans eat it? Could we survive such temperatures?

There are lots of viable alternatives.

No need for them.

There\'s no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels, as
there are viable alternatives.

You stupidly refuse the much more viable alternative, nukes.

IF the morons running this country decided TODAY, to build a nuke, it
would not be generating power for 20 years.

That’s bullshit, the chinese build them much quicker than that.

**Points:

* We are not likely to buy a Chinese reactor anytime soon.
* Would you trust a Chinese reactor?

In 20 years, we could fill a tiny corner of SA, WA and NT with solar
PV and generate enough power to satisfy the entire planet\'s needs for
electricity.

But no viable way of getting it to the rest of the world.

**Utter bullshit. We can:

* Use HVDC cable to the coast.
* Send power via undersea HVDC cable.
* Convert electricity to H2 and freight it to all over the joint.

However, my point was a thought experiment (mostly), since we have no
politicians in this country capable of independent thought, nor
scientific knowledge and they can\'t think past the next election anyway.
However, we do have a couple of entrepreneurs who want to make a
difference.

We could be an energy exporter.

Not even to singapore, makes much more
sense to have more nukes there instead.

**We\'ll see:

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/monster-solar-farm-backed-by-atlassian-founder-about-to-get-significantly-bigger-20210820-p58kpm.html

Fortunately, we have some forward thinking entrepreneurs in this country:

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/northern-territory-to-become-home-to-the-worlds-largest-solar-farm/


Taint gunna happen, you watch.

**We\'ll see.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 20/09/2021 10:06 am, Rod Speed wrote:

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

**Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains,
who is
incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.

** That that describes the TW ratbag  quite well.

  > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.

** Massive understatement

  >Too old. HOWEVER, there  was a worse choice for POTUS:

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name


** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.

**We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is
the most
insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office.
And yes,
that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo
is worse.


** For the uninformed:

1.   TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
decades.

**\"besotted\", \"for two decades\"? Try FIVE decades. I\'ve been
reading everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since
the early 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite
mathematician, Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th
century. That hypothesis was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the
end of the 19th century. Despite more than 100 years of trying,
deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch,
Trump, et al) of AGW theory have been unable to prove Arrhenius
wrong. AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the subject
with me, I am always ready.

2.   The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.

**Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both
believe that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives
in the sky and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire
history of humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to
show that such a monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person
who subscribes to such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you
feel that such a monster exists, then you need to seek
psycho-therapy.

3.   So he has an overwhelming need to hate them -  just to
keep face.

**\"Hate\"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably
incapable of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up
badly. I don\'t \"hate\" them. I am, however, profoundly
disappointed in those morons who kept them in government.

4.   TW  is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google
it)
5.   TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.

**What \"extreme ideas\" do you refer to? AGW theory? You\'re on
VERY thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In
the mean time, spend a little effort here:

www.ippc.ch

The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,

There is no \"if\".

Wrong.

Nope. Correct.

We\'ll see...

There is no \"we\'ll see\'. We are already seeing it.

No we are not with your hysterical claim about 60C

**\"WE\" won\'t see 60 degree C heatwave days, but those who come after us
will.

We haven\'t even seen england returning to the
climate that was there when the romans were
there and clearly civilisation survived that fine.

**Are you STILL blathering on about a bunch of drunken Italians, in an
insignificant corner of the planet?

Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

Bullshit.

Fact.

Then YOU need to cite where \"those same people (who are studying AGW
theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling\".

The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

**The first para from YOUR cite:

\"Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of
imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive
glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing.
Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;
these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time,
which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
greenhouse effect.[1]\"

\'Global cooling\' was bullshit then and it is bullshit now. Since
Arrhenius proved the connection between CO2 and rising temperatures, no
climate scientist has bought into your bullshit.

The guys who were babbling on about \'global cooling\' were the
imaginative writers of Time Magazine:

Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on
about.

No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

There was in fact a hell of a lot more claiming that than one time article.
It was in fact just reporting on what they were claiming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

**Who is \"they\"?

A bunch of idiots? Not interested in what idiots think about AGW.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of
note. It is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as
credible as a Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.

 NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.

Wrong, as always.

Then present your evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

**The first para:

\"Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of
imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive
glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing.
Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;
these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time,
which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
greenhouse effect.[1]\"

As I stated before:

Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
temperatures more than 100 years ago.

How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
and haven\'t returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

What the fuck are you smoking. I don\'t give a fuck about weather
conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.

It wasn’t just there or in greenland.

**And yet, you blather on about a bunch of drunken Italians in England.

You\'re talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck\'s
sake. Climatology is concerned with AVERAGE climate conditions on a
planet-wide scale. To put that into perspective, England represents
1/4000th the surface area of this planet. Four fifths of fuck-all.

1.1 degrees C AVERAGE temperature rise is both measurable and
significant.

Pity it was more than that when the romans were in england and the
vikings in greenland.

**Again: Local climate effects are not the issue. Planet-wide climate is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"

Our climate is warmer today, than it was in 2000. Therefore, the
temporary, local warming back then, was cooler than it is today.

Here is a record of temperatures for the past 2,000 years.

Pity about before that.

Planet-wide, NOT a minuscule 1/4000th section of the planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

NOT ONCE, in the intervening 120-odd years, has any credible
evidence been put forward to disprove Arrhenius\' theory.

What I just stated blows it completely out of the fucking water.

**How? You cite a bunch of drunken Italians planting grapes as
evidence of something?

You\'re kidding.

Keep this shit up and you will be ignored.

**Oh dear. You have me scared now.

If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize,
like the one that Arrhenius won.

Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate
scientist on the planet is wrong.

That claim is pure bullshit.

Nup. Fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

Pity about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

**The first para:

\"Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of
imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive
glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing.
Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;
these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time,
which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
greenhouse effect.[1]\"

Conjecture:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conjecture

\"the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient
evidence for proof.
an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
Obsolete. the interpretation of signs or omens.
verb (used with object), con·jec·tured, con·jec·tur·ing.
to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure
reliability.
verb (used without object), con·jec·tured, con·jec·tur·ing.
to form conjectures.\"

AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and
observation wise.

Easy to claim.

Of course it\'s easy to claim. The evidence is utterly and completely
overwhelming.

More bullshit with the fact that the average temperatures have
done nothing even remotely like what the CO2 levels have done.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg


Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Not true about the time when its was well over 600ppm

**OK. When did that occur?
What was the average temperature of the planet when CO2 levels were that
high?

Cite please.

Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
way it happens, the two events are closely linked.


the world worked fine when the romans were growing
grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.

Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.

The romans didn’t need that.

In Greenland?

In europe.

Then stop babbling on about Greenland. I still don\'t know why you are
babbling on about a bunch of drunken Italians growing grapes in an
insignificant corner of the planet, but I guess it means something to
you.

It’s the evidence that average temps were much higher then
and we survived that fine.

**It\'s evidence that average temps were somewhat COOLER than they were
today.

First I heard about that. Grapes are grown all over the place.
Including Australia. They\'ve been grown in England for many hundreds
of years.

But at nothing like the level the romans did in england.

**Again: Who gives a fuck what drunken Italians were doing a couple of
thousand years ago in an insignificant corner of the planet?


I am unsurprised that the Romans planted grape vines. They were
partial to the odd glass/jug of wine.

And the climate in england then made that very viable.

**OK.


Then it later wasn’t.

**OK.

Like I said: What happened in an insignificant corner of the planet a
couple of thousand years ago, is irrelevant.

Not when it’s the evidence of much warmer global temps than now.

**Incorrect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"

Just throwing it out there, but the possible reason why the Poms
stopped growing grapes, is because the drunken Italians left and the
Poms went back to beer. And, if you\'ve ever tasted Pommy wines, you\'ll
understand why the Poms drink beer.

Because the climate there is much cooler now than when the romans were
there.

**Incorrect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"

However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
Victoria is a good thing,

That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
to believe that it would happen now.

\"Now\"? Nope. In  a 100 or so years? As we rapidly approach the
\'tipping point\',

There is no evidence of any tipping point.

That\'s because we have not reached it yet.

But no evidence that there is any tipping point given that
that wasn’t see when the romans were growing much
better wine in england than is possible now and the
vikings were growing much more in greenland than
is possible now.

**That\'s because CO2 was not responsible for the temporary warming
experienced back when the drunken Italians were wandering around Europe.
It is not known with any precision why the warming occurred back then.

However, there is evidence that the tipping point is being approached:

Bullshit there is.

**OK. You tell me:

What magical mechanism exists to cause the present warming to cease?

Take as much time and space as you need to respond.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/massive-craters-in-siberia-are-exploding-into-existence-whats-causing-them


How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

**The Poms are good at beer and crap at wine. It\'s a cultural thing, not
a climate thing. The drunken Italians prefer their own particular crap
wine. The French, Aussies and Americans are best at making decent wine.
Sometimes the Germans do a good drop. And the Kiwis. The Poms? Nup. Never.

As you are no doubt aware, methane is around 20 TIMES more potent as a
GHG than CO2. There are billions of Tonnes of CO2 in permafrost
regions. As the methane is released, then greenhouse effects will
increase. This will lead to more warming and more methane release.
Allied with this, will be the release of CO2 from the oceans, as the
oceans warm further. At some point, the effect will be impossible to
reverse. Then we will be fucked.

How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

**And once more: A LOCALISED climate change is not a planet-wide one.

it is absolutely possible.

How odd that that never happened even when the
CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.

You really have done zero research, haven\'t you? NOT ONE TEENY TINY
BIT. Look at this:

Don’t need to, that’s what I had researched.

**You not only have to research more, but you need to read your own
damned cites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg


CO2 levels were estimated to be thousands of ppm 50 million years ago.

What I was referring to.

**Points:

* Humans didn\'t exist back then.
* It was MUCH hotter back then.

then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.

More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.

Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.

Don’t need to, we didn’t see 60 degree C days when the CO2 levels
were much higher than they are today. Its just your silly straw man.

Actually, that is bullshit:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

**Cite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

I hasten to add that no human was alive when CO2 levels and temps were
that high.

But plenty of flora and fauna were when the CO2 level was
twice what it is now.

**And it was MUCH hotter. Tell me: How long would it take for humans to
evolve to deal with temperatures that high? How long would it take to
develop crops and animals to survive those temps?

No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.

Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.

That shutting down the use of coal and fossil fuels.

No point in doing anything that stupid.

Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to
rise at a faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past
million years.

Pity we didn’t see 60C even when the CO2
levels were much higher than they are now.

Wrong:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

**Cite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

That said, it is correct to say that CO2 levels are higher today than
at any time in (at least) the past million years. Same with temperatures.

Pity that there was plenty of flora and fauna around well before that.

**Could humans eat it? Could we survive such temperatures?

There are lots of viable alternatives.

No need for them.

There\'s no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels, as
there are viable alternatives.

You stupidly refuse the much more viable alternative, nukes.

IF the morons running this country decided TODAY, to build a nuke, it
would not be generating power for 20 years.

That’s bullshit, the chinese build them much quicker than that.

**Points:

* We are not likely to buy a Chinese reactor anytime soon.
* Would you trust a Chinese reactor?

In 20 years, we could fill a tiny corner of SA, WA and NT with solar
PV and generate enough power to satisfy the entire planet\'s needs for
electricity.

But no viable way of getting it to the rest of the world.

**Utter bullshit. We can:

* Use HVDC cable to the coast.
* Send power via undersea HVDC cable.
* Convert electricity to H2 and freight it to all over the joint.

However, my point was a thought experiment (mostly), since we have no
politicians in this country capable of independent thought, nor
scientific knowledge and they can\'t think past the next election anyway.
However, we do have a couple of entrepreneurs who want to make a
difference.

We could be an energy exporter.

Not even to singapore, makes much more
sense to have more nukes there instead.

**We\'ll see:

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/monster-solar-farm-backed-by-atlassian-founder-about-to-get-significantly-bigger-20210820-p58kpm.html

Fortunately, we have some forward thinking entrepreneurs in this country:

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/northern-territory-to-become-home-to-the-worlds-largest-solar-farm/


Taint gunna happen, you watch.

**We\'ll see.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 20/09/2021 10:06 am, Rod Speed wrote:

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

**Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains,
who is
incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.

** That that describes the TW ratbag  quite well.

  > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.

** Massive understatement

  >Too old. HOWEVER, there  was a worse choice for POTUS:

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name


** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.

**We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is
the most
insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office.
And yes,
that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo
is worse.


** For the uninformed:

1.   TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
decades.

**\"besotted\", \"for two decades\"? Try FIVE decades. I\'ve been
reading everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since
the early 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite
mathematician, Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th
century. That hypothesis was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the
end of the 19th century. Despite more than 100 years of trying,
deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch,
Trump, et al) of AGW theory have been unable to prove Arrhenius
wrong. AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the subject
with me, I am always ready.

2.   The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.

**Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both
believe that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives
in the sky and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire
history of humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to
show that such a monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person
who subscribes to such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you
feel that such a monster exists, then you need to seek
psycho-therapy.

3.   So he has an overwhelming need to hate them -  just to
keep face.

**\"Hate\"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably
incapable of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up
badly. I don\'t \"hate\" them. I am, however, profoundly
disappointed in those morons who kept them in government.

4.   TW  is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google
it)
5.   TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.

**What \"extreme ideas\" do you refer to? AGW theory? You\'re on
VERY thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In
the mean time, spend a little effort here:

www.ippc.ch

The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,

There is no \"if\".

Wrong.

Nope. Correct.

We\'ll see...

There is no \"we\'ll see\'. We are already seeing it.

No we are not with your hysterical claim about 60C

**\"WE\" won\'t see 60 degree C heatwave days, but those who come after us
will.

We haven\'t even seen england returning to the
climate that was there when the romans were
there and clearly civilisation survived that fine.

**Are you STILL blathering on about a bunch of drunken Italians, in an
insignificant corner of the planet?

Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long time.

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

Bullshit.

Fact.

Then YOU need to cite where \"those same people (who are studying AGW
theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling\".

The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

**The first para from YOUR cite:

\"Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of
imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive
glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing.
Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;
these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time,
which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
greenhouse effect.[1]\"

\'Global cooling\' was bullshit then and it is bullshit now. Since
Arrhenius proved the connection between CO2 and rising temperatures, no
climate scientist has bought into your bullshit.

The guys who were babbling on about \'global cooling\' were the
imaginative writers of Time Magazine:

Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on
about.

No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

There was in fact a hell of a lot more claiming that than one time article.
It was in fact just reporting on what they were claiming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

**Who is \"they\"?

A bunch of idiots? Not interested in what idiots think about AGW.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of
note. It is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as
credible as a Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.

 NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.

Wrong, as always.

Then present your evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

**The first para:

\"Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of
imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive
glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing.
Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;
these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time,
which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
greenhouse effect.[1]\"

As I stated before:

Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
temperatures more than 100 years ago.

How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
and haven\'t returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

What the fuck are you smoking. I don\'t give a fuck about weather
conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.

It wasn’t just there or in greenland.

**And yet, you blather on about a bunch of drunken Italians in England.

You\'re talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck\'s
sake. Climatology is concerned with AVERAGE climate conditions on a
planet-wide scale. To put that into perspective, England represents
1/4000th the surface area of this planet. Four fifths of fuck-all.

1.1 degrees C AVERAGE temperature rise is both measurable and
significant.

Pity it was more than that when the romans were in england and the
vikings in greenland.

**Again: Local climate effects are not the issue. Planet-wide climate is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"

Our climate is warmer today, than it was in 2000. Therefore, the
temporary, local warming back then, was cooler than it is today.

Here is a record of temperatures for the past 2,000 years.

Pity about before that.

Planet-wide, NOT a minuscule 1/4000th section of the planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

NOT ONCE, in the intervening 120-odd years, has any credible
evidence been put forward to disprove Arrhenius\' theory.

What I just stated blows it completely out of the fucking water.

**How? You cite a bunch of drunken Italians planting grapes as
evidence of something?

You\'re kidding.

Keep this shit up and you will be ignored.

**Oh dear. You have me scared now.

If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize,
like the one that Arrhenius won.

Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate
scientist on the planet is wrong.

That claim is pure bullshit.

Nup. Fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

Pity about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

**The first para:

\"Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of
imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive
glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing.
Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;
these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time,
which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
greenhouse effect.[1]\"

Conjecture:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conjecture

\"the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient
evidence for proof.
an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
Obsolete. the interpretation of signs or omens.
verb (used with object), con·jec·tured, con·jec·tur·ing.
to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure
reliability.
verb (used without object), con·jec·tured, con·jec·tur·ing.
to form conjectures.\"

AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and
observation wise.

Easy to claim.

Of course it\'s easy to claim. The evidence is utterly and completely
overwhelming.

More bullshit with the fact that the average temperatures have
done nothing even remotely like what the CO2 levels have done.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg


Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Not true about the time when its was well over 600ppm

**OK. When did that occur?
What was the average temperature of the planet when CO2 levels were that
high?

Cite please.

Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
way it happens, the two events are closely linked.


the world worked fine when the romans were growing
grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.

Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.

The romans didn’t need that.

In Greenland?

In europe.

Then stop babbling on about Greenland. I still don\'t know why you are
babbling on about a bunch of drunken Italians growing grapes in an
insignificant corner of the planet, but I guess it means something to
you.

It’s the evidence that average temps were much higher then
and we survived that fine.

**It\'s evidence that average temps were somewhat COOLER than they were
today.

First I heard about that. Grapes are grown all over the place.
Including Australia. They\'ve been grown in England for many hundreds
of years.

But at nothing like the level the romans did in england.

**Again: Who gives a fuck what drunken Italians were doing a couple of
thousand years ago in an insignificant corner of the planet?


I am unsurprised that the Romans planted grape vines. They were
partial to the odd glass/jug of wine.

And the climate in england then made that very viable.

**OK.


Then it later wasn’t.

**OK.

Like I said: What happened in an insignificant corner of the planet a
couple of thousand years ago, is irrelevant.

Not when it’s the evidence of much warmer global temps than now.

**Incorrect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"

Just throwing it out there, but the possible reason why the Poms
stopped growing grapes, is because the drunken Italians left and the
Poms went back to beer. And, if you\'ve ever tasted Pommy wines, you\'ll
understand why the Poms drink beer.

Because the climate there is much cooler now than when the romans were
there.

**Incorrect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"

However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
Victoria is a good thing,

That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
to believe that it would happen now.

\"Now\"? Nope. In  a 100 or so years? As we rapidly approach the
\'tipping point\',

There is no evidence of any tipping point.

That\'s because we have not reached it yet.

But no evidence that there is any tipping point given that
that wasn’t see when the romans were growing much
better wine in england than is possible now and the
vikings were growing much more in greenland than
is possible now.

**That\'s because CO2 was not responsible for the temporary warming
experienced back when the drunken Italians were wandering around Europe.
It is not known with any precision why the warming occurred back then.

However, there is evidence that the tipping point is being approached:

Bullshit there is.

**OK. You tell me:

What magical mechanism exists to cause the present warming to cease?

Take as much time and space as you need to respond.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/massive-craters-in-siberia-are-exploding-into-existence-whats-causing-them


How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

**The Poms are good at beer and crap at wine. It\'s a cultural thing, not
a climate thing. The drunken Italians prefer their own particular crap
wine. The French, Aussies and Americans are best at making decent wine.
Sometimes the Germans do a good drop. And the Kiwis. The Poms? Nup. Never.

As you are no doubt aware, methane is around 20 TIMES more potent as a
GHG than CO2. There are billions of Tonnes of CO2 in permafrost
regions. As the methane is released, then greenhouse effects will
increase. This will lead to more warming and more methane release.
Allied with this, will be the release of CO2 from the oceans, as the
oceans warm further. At some point, the effect will be impossible to
reverse. Then we will be fucked.

How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

**And once more: A LOCALISED climate change is not a planet-wide one.

it is absolutely possible.

How odd that that never happened even when the
CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.

You really have done zero research, haven\'t you? NOT ONE TEENY TINY
BIT. Look at this:

Don’t need to, that’s what I had researched.

**You not only have to research more, but you need to read your own
damned cites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg


CO2 levels were estimated to be thousands of ppm 50 million years ago.

What I was referring to.

**Points:

* Humans didn\'t exist back then.
* It was MUCH hotter back then.

then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.

More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.

Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.

Don’t need to, we didn’t see 60 degree C days when the CO2 levels
were much higher than they are today. Its just your silly straw man.

Actually, that is bullshit:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

**Cite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

I hasten to add that no human was alive when CO2 levels and temps were
that high.

But plenty of flora and fauna were when the CO2 level was
twice what it is now.

**And it was MUCH hotter. Tell me: How long would it take for humans to
evolve to deal with temperatures that high? How long would it take to
develop crops and animals to survive those temps?

No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.

Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.

That shutting down the use of coal and fossil fuels.

No point in doing anything that stupid.

Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to
rise at a faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past
million years.

Pity we didn’t see 60C even when the CO2
levels were much higher than they are now.

Wrong:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

**Cite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

That said, it is correct to say that CO2 levels are higher today than
at any time in (at least) the past million years. Same with temperatures.

Pity that there was plenty of flora and fauna around well before that.

**Could humans eat it? Could we survive such temperatures?

There are lots of viable alternatives.

No need for them.

There\'s no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels, as
there are viable alternatives.

You stupidly refuse the much more viable alternative, nukes.

IF the morons running this country decided TODAY, to build a nuke, it
would not be generating power for 20 years.

That’s bullshit, the chinese build them much quicker than that.

**Points:

* We are not likely to buy a Chinese reactor anytime soon.
* Would you trust a Chinese reactor?

In 20 years, we could fill a tiny corner of SA, WA and NT with solar
PV and generate enough power to satisfy the entire planet\'s needs for
electricity.

But no viable way of getting it to the rest of the world.

**Utter bullshit. We can:

* Use HVDC cable to the coast.
* Send power via undersea HVDC cable.
* Convert electricity to H2 and freight it to all over the joint.

However, my point was a thought experiment (mostly), since we have no
politicians in this country capable of independent thought, nor
scientific knowledge and they can\'t think past the next election anyway.
However, we do have a couple of entrepreneurs who want to make a
difference.

We could be an energy exporter.

Not even to singapore, makes much more
sense to have more nukes there instead.

**We\'ll see:

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/monster-solar-farm-backed-by-atlassian-founder-about-to-get-significantly-bigger-20210820-p58kpm.html

Fortunately, we have some forward thinking entrepreneurs in this country:

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/northern-territory-to-become-home-to-the-worlds-largest-solar-farm/


Taint gunna happen, you watch.

**We\'ll see.

 

[Rod Speed]

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

**Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains,
who is
incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.

** That that describes the TW ratbag quite well.

My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.

** Massive understatement

Too old. HOWEVER, there was a worse choice for POTUS:

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name

** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.

**We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is
the most
insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And
yes,
that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is
worse.


** For the uninformed:

1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
decades.

**\"besotted\", \"for two decades\"? Try FIVE decades. I\'ve been
reading everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since
the early 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite
mathematician, Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th
century. That hypothesis was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the
end of the 19th century. Despite more than 100 years of trying,
deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump,
et al) of AGW theory have been unable to prove Arrhenius wrong.
AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the subject with me, I
am always ready.

2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.

**Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both
believe that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives
in the sky and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire
history of humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to
show that such a monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person
who subscribes to such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel
that such a monster exists, then you need to seek psycho-therapy.

3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep
face.

**\"Hate\"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable
of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don\'t
\"hate\" them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those
morons who kept them in government.

4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google
it)
5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.

**What \"extreme ideas\" do you refer to? AGW theory? You\'re on VERY
thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the
mean time, spend a little effort here:

www.ippc.ch

The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,

There is no \"if\".

Wrong.

Nope. Correct.

We\'ll see...

There is no \"we\'ll see\'. We are already seeing it.

No we are not with your hysterical claim about 60C

**\"WE\" won\'t see 60 degree C heatwave days, but those who come after us
will.

That remains to be seen given that they weren\'t
seen when we last saw CO2 levels of 600 ppm.

We haven\'t even seen england returning to the
climate that was there when the romans were
there and clearly civilisation survived that fine.

Are you STILL blathering on about a bunch of drunken Italians, in an
insignificant corner of the planet?

That wasn’t just an isolated example of local climate
change, neither were the ice ages or greenland when
the vikings chose to colonise there.

Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long
time.

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

Bullshit.

Fact.

Then YOU need to cite where \"those same people (who are studying AGW
theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling\".

The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

The first para from YOUR cite:

\"Global cooling was a conjecture,

So is AGW

> especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling

It wasn’t just about imminent, some or the scientists
stated that we had actually seen cooling since 1940
and that that was continuing.

> of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation,

Just like your hysterical claims about 60C temps.

due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing. Some press
reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;

Not just press reports, by the scientists of the day too.

these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time,
which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
greenhouse effect.[1]\"

Plenty of scientists said that too, it wasn’t just the press.

> \'Global cooling\' was bullshit then and it is bullshit now.

That remains to be seen too. We do know
that we do get ice ages periodically.

> Since Arrhenius proved the connection between CO2 and rising temperatures,

But couldn’t explain why we didn’t see anything
special average temperature wise when the CO2
level was over 600ppm.

> no climate scientist has bought into your bullshit.

It isn\'t my bullshit and hardly any climate scientist is
actually stupid enough to run your line about 60C

The guys who were babbling on about \'global cooling\' were the
imaginative writers of Time Magazine:

Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on
about.

No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

There was in fact a hell of a lot more claiming that than one time
article.
It was in fact just reporting on what they were claiming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Who is \"they\"?

The scientists of the day. including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
(NAS)

> A bunch of idiots? Not interested in what idiots think about AGW.

Having fun thrashing yet another straw man ?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of note.
It is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as credible as
a Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.

NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.

Wrong, as always.

Then present your evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

As I stated before:

Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
temperatures more than 100 years ago.

How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
and haven\'t returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

What the fuck are you smoking. I don\'t give a fuck about weather
conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.

It wasn’t just there or in greenland.

And yet, you blather on about a bunch of drunken Italians in England.

Because that is the evidence of significantly higher temperatures
than now which not only didn’t produce any tipping point, actually
improved things for civilisation at that time and we didn’t see any
60C heatwaves or the decimation of all flora and fauna either.

You\'re talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck\'s sake.
Climatology is concerned with AVERAGE climate conditions on a
planet-wide scale. To put that into perspective, England represents
1/4000th the surface area of this planet. Four fifths of fuck-all.

1.1 degrees C AVERAGE temperature rise is both measurable and
significant.

Pity it was more than that when the romans were in england and the
vikings in greenland.

**Again: Local climate effects are not the issue. Planet-wide climate is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"

Our climate is warmer today, than it was in 2000.

Climate varys, that’s no news.

Therefore, the temporary, local warming back then, was cooler than it is
today.

Not in england.

Here is a record of temperatures for the past 2,000 years.

Pity about before that.

Planet-wide, NOT a minuscule 1/4000th section of the planet.

More of your flagrant dishonesty given that

The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a
period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

NOT ONCE, in the intervening 120-odd years, has any credible evidence
been put forward to disprove Arrhenius\' theory.

What I just stated blows it completely out of the fucking water.

**How? You cite a bunch of drunken Italians planting grapes as evidence
of something?

You\'re kidding.

Keep this shit up and you will be ignored.

**Oh dear. You have me scared now.


If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like
the one that Arrhenius won.

Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
on the planet is wrong.

That claim is pure bullshit.

Nup. Fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

Pity about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation
wise.

Easy to claim.

Of course it\'s easy to claim. The evidence is utterly and completely
overwhelming.

More bullshit with the fact that the average temperatures have
done nothing even remotely like what the CO2 levels have done.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Not true about the time when its was well over 600ppm

**OK. When did that occur?
What was the average temperature of the planet when CO2 levels were that
high?

Cite please.



Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
way it happens, the two events are closely linked.


the world worked fine when the romans were growing
grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.

Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.

The romans didn’t need that.

In Greenland?

In europe.

Then stop babbling on about Greenland. I still don\'t know why you are
babbling on about a bunch of drunken Italians growing grapes in an
insignificant corner of the planet, but I guess it means something to
you.

It’s the evidence that average temps were much higher then
and we survived that fine.

**It\'s evidence that average temps were somewhat COOLER than they were
today.

Not in the roman warm period they weren\'t.

First I heard about that. Grapes are grown all over the place.
Including Australia. They\'ve been grown in England for many hundreds
of years.

But at nothing like the level the romans did in england.

**Again: Who gives a fuck what drunken Italians were doing a couple of
thousand years ago in an insignificant corner of the planet?


I am unsurprised that the Romans planted grape vines. They were
partial to the odd glass/jug of wine.

And the climate in england then made that very viable.

**OK.


Then it later wasn’t.

**OK.

Like I said: What happened in an insignificant corner of the planet a
couple of thousand years ago, is irrelevant.

Not when it’s the evidence of much warmer global temps than now.

**Incorrect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"


Just throwing it out there, but the possible reason why the Poms stopped
growing grapes, is because the drunken Italians left and the Poms went
back to beer. And, if you\'ve ever tasted Pommy wines, you\'ll understand
why the Poms drink beer.

Because the climate there is much cooler now than when the romans were
there.

**Incorrect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"

Pity about

The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a
period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic

However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
Victoria is a good thing,

That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
to believe that it would happen now.

\"Now\"? Nope. In a 100 or so years? As we rapidly approach the
\'tipping point\',

There is no evidence of any tipping point.

That\'s because we have not reached it yet.

But no evidence that there is any tipping point given that
that wasn’t see when the romans were growing much
better wine in england than is possible now and the
vikings were growing much more in greenland than
is possible now.

**That\'s because CO2 was not responsible for the temporary warming
experienced back when the drunken Italians were wandering around Europe.
It is not known with any precision why the warming occurred back then.

Corse it is, climate varys, stupid. We even have ice ages and little ice
ages at times.

However, there is evidence that the tipping point is being approached:

Bullshit there is.

**OK. You tell me:

What magical mechanism exists to cause the present warming to cease?

Same one that produces ice ages and little ice ages
and what produced the signicant drop in temps
post 1940, natural variation in world climate.

Take as much time and space as you need to respond.


https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/massive-craters-in-siberia-are-exploding-into-existence-whats-causing-them

How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

**The Poms are good at beer and crap at wine. It\'s a cultural thing, not a
climate thing. The drunken Italians prefer their own particular crap wine.
The French, Aussies and Americans are best at making decent wine.
Sometimes the Germans do a good drop. And the Kiwis. The Poms? Nup. Never.

They did during the roman warm period.

As you are no doubt aware, methane is around 20 TIMES more potent as a
GHG than CO2. There are billions of Tonnes of CO2 in permafrost regions.
As the methane is released, then greenhouse effects will increase. This
will lead to more warming and more methane release. Allied with this,
will be the release of CO2 from the oceans, as the oceans warm further.
At some point, the effect will be impossible to reverse. Then we will be
fucked.

How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

**And once more: A LOCALISED climate change

It wasn’t.

The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a
period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic

> is not a planet-wide one.

The change in climate seen lately isn\'t either.

it is absolutely possible.

How odd that that never happened even when the
CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.

You really have done zero research, haven\'t you? NOT ONE TEENY TINY BIT.
Look at this:

Don’t need to, that’s what I had researched.

You not only have to research more, but you need to read your own damned
cites.

You in spades with the roman warm period and global cooling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

CO2 levels were estimated to be thousands of ppm 50 million years ago.

What I was referring to.

**Points:

* Humans didn\'t exist back then.

Irrelevant. Clearly that was natural variation in climate.

> * It was MUCH hotter back then.

But didn’t see no flora and fauna as you hysterically claimed.

then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.

More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.

Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.

Don’t need to, we didn’t see 60 degree C days when the CO2 levels
were much higher than they are today. Its just your silly straw man.

Actually, that is bullshit:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

**Cite.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

I hasten to add that no human was alive when CO2 levels and temps were
that high.

But plenty of flora and fauna were when the CO2 level was
twice what it is now.

**And it was MUCH hotter. Tell me: How long would it take for humans to
evolve to deal with temperatures that high?

They don’t need to, we have invented funky stuff like air conditioning.

How long would it take to develop crops and animals to survive those
temps?

Again, they survived fine when it was much hotter than it is now.

No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.

Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.

That shutting down the use of coal and fossil fuels.

No point in doing anything that stupid.

Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to rise
at a faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past million
years.

Pity we didn’t see 60C even when the CO2
levels were much higher than they are now.

Wrong:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

**Cite.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

That said, it is correct to say that CO2 levels are higher today than at
any time in (at least) the past million years. Same with temperatures.

Pity that there was plenty of flora and fauna around well before that.

**Could humans eat it?

Obviously the fauna could.

> Could we survive such temperatures?

Corse we could given that we have invented air conditioning.

There are lots of viable alternatives.

No need for them.

There\'s no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels, as
there are viable alternatives.

You stupidly refuse the much more viable alternative, nukes.

IF the morons running this country decided TODAY, to build a nuke, it
would not be generating power for 20 years.

That’s bullshit, the chinese build them much quicker than that.

**Points:

* We are not likely to buy a Chinese reactor anytime soon.

But that shows it can be done.

> * Would you trust a Chinese reactor?

Irrelevant, that shows that its perfectly possible.

In 20 years, we could fill a tiny corner of SA, WA and NT with solar PV
and generate enough power to satisfy the entire planet\'s needs for
electricity.

But no viable way of getting it to the rest of the world.

**Utter bullshit. We can:

* Use HVDC cable to the coast.
* Send power via undersea HVDC cable.

Doesn’t work to supply the entire world.

> * Convert electricity to H2 and freight it to all over the joint.

Stupid way to do things instead of using nukes where the power is needed.

However, my point was a thought experiment (mostly), since we have no
politicians in this country capable of independent thought,

Politicians are irrelevant to stuff like that. They
didn’t produce planes, ships, cars, etc etc etc.

nor scientific knowledge and they can\'t think past the next election
anyway. However, we do have a couple of entrepreneurs who want to make a
difference.

Who wont in fact do anything of the sort that way.

We could be an energy exporter.

Not even to singapore, makes much more
sense to have more nukes there instead.

**We\'ll see:

It flop, just like the stupid tidal power systems all have.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/monster-solar-farm-backed-by-atlassian-founder-about-to-get-significantly-bigger-20210820-p58kpm.html


Fortunately, we have some forward thinking entrepreneurs in this
country:

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/northern-territory-to-become-home-to-the-worlds-largest-solar-farm/

Taint gunna happen, you watch.

**We\'ll see.

 

[Rod Speed]

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

**Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains,
who is
incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.

** That that describes the TW ratbag quite well.

My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.

** Massive understatement

Too old. HOWEVER, there was a worse choice for POTUS:

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name

** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.

**We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is
the most
insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And
yes,
that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is
worse.


** For the uninformed:

1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
decades.

**\"besotted\", \"for two decades\"? Try FIVE decades. I\'ve been
reading everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since
the early 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite
mathematician, Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th
century. That hypothesis was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the
end of the 19th century. Despite more than 100 years of trying,
deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump,
et al) of AGW theory have been unable to prove Arrhenius wrong.
AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the subject with me, I
am always ready.

2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.

**Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both
believe that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives
in the sky and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire
history of humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to
show that such a monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person
who subscribes to such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel
that such a monster exists, then you need to seek psycho-therapy.

3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep
face.

**\"Hate\"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable
of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don\'t
\"hate\" them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those
morons who kept them in government.

4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google
it)
5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.

**What \"extreme ideas\" do you refer to? AGW theory? You\'re on VERY
thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the
mean time, spend a little effort here:

www.ippc.ch

The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,

There is no \"if\".

Wrong.

Nope. Correct.

We\'ll see...

There is no \"we\'ll see\'. We are already seeing it.

No we are not with your hysterical claim about 60C

**\"WE\" won\'t see 60 degree C heatwave days, but those who come after us
will.

That remains to be seen given that they weren\'t
seen when we last saw CO2 levels of 600 ppm.

We haven\'t even seen england returning to the
climate that was there when the romans were
there and clearly civilisation survived that fine.

Are you STILL blathering on about a bunch of drunken Italians, in an
insignificant corner of the planet?

That wasn’t just an isolated example of local climate
change, neither were the ice ages or greenland when
the vikings chose to colonise there.

Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long
time.

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

Bullshit.

Fact.

Then YOU need to cite where \"those same people (who are studying AGW
theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling\".

The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

The first para from YOUR cite:

\"Global cooling was a conjecture,

So is AGW

> especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling

It wasn’t just about imminent, some or the scientists
stated that we had actually seen cooling since 1940
and that that was continuing.

> of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation,

Just like your hysterical claims about 60C temps.

due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing. Some press
reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;

Not just press reports, by the scientists of the day too.

these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time,
which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
greenhouse effect.[1]\"

Plenty of scientists said that too, it wasn’t just the press.

> \'Global cooling\' was bullshit then and it is bullshit now.

That remains to be seen too. We do know
that we do get ice ages periodically.

> Since Arrhenius proved the connection between CO2 and rising temperatures,

But couldn’t explain why we didn’t see anything
special average temperature wise when the CO2
level was over 600ppm.

> no climate scientist has bought into your bullshit.

It isn\'t my bullshit and hardly any climate scientist is
actually stupid enough to run your line about 60C

The guys who were babbling on about \'global cooling\' were the
imaginative writers of Time Magazine:

Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on
about.

No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

There was in fact a hell of a lot more claiming that than one time
article.
It was in fact just reporting on what they were claiming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Who is \"they\"?

The scientists of the day. including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
(NAS)

> A bunch of idiots? Not interested in what idiots think about AGW.

Having fun thrashing yet another straw man ?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of note.
It is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as credible as
a Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.

NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.

Wrong, as always.

Then present your evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

As I stated before:

Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
temperatures more than 100 years ago.

How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
and haven\'t returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

What the fuck are you smoking. I don\'t give a fuck about weather
conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.

It wasn’t just there or in greenland.

And yet, you blather on about a bunch of drunken Italians in England.

Because that is the evidence of significantly higher temperatures
than now which not only didn’t produce any tipping point, actually
improved things for civilisation at that time and we didn’t see any
60C heatwaves or the decimation of all flora and fauna either.

You\'re talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck\'s sake.
Climatology is concerned with AVERAGE climate conditions on a
planet-wide scale. To put that into perspective, England represents
1/4000th the surface area of this planet. Four fifths of fuck-all.

1.1 degrees C AVERAGE temperature rise is both measurable and
significant.

Pity it was more than that when the romans were in england and the
vikings in greenland.

**Again: Local climate effects are not the issue. Planet-wide climate is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"

Our climate is warmer today, than it was in 2000.

Climate varys, that’s no news.

Therefore, the temporary, local warming back then, was cooler than it is
today.

Not in england.

Here is a record of temperatures for the past 2,000 years.

Pity about before that.

Planet-wide, NOT a minuscule 1/4000th section of the planet.

More of your flagrant dishonesty given that

The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a
period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

NOT ONCE, in the intervening 120-odd years, has any credible evidence
been put forward to disprove Arrhenius\' theory.

What I just stated blows it completely out of the fucking water.

**How? You cite a bunch of drunken Italians planting grapes as evidence
of something?

You\'re kidding.

Keep this shit up and you will be ignored.

**Oh dear. You have me scared now.


If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like
the one that Arrhenius won.

Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
on the planet is wrong.

That claim is pure bullshit.

Nup. Fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

Pity about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation
wise.

Easy to claim.

Of course it\'s easy to claim. The evidence is utterly and completely
overwhelming.

More bullshit with the fact that the average temperatures have
done nothing even remotely like what the CO2 levels have done.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Not true about the time when its was well over 600ppm

**OK. When did that occur?
What was the average temperature of the planet when CO2 levels were that
high?

Cite please.



Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
way it happens, the two events are closely linked.


the world worked fine when the romans were growing
grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.

Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.

The romans didn’t need that.

In Greenland?

In europe.

Then stop babbling on about Greenland. I still don\'t know why you are
babbling on about a bunch of drunken Italians growing grapes in an
insignificant corner of the planet, but I guess it means something to
you.

It’s the evidence that average temps were much higher then
and we survived that fine.

**It\'s evidence that average temps were somewhat COOLER than they were
today.

Not in the roman warm period they weren\'t.

First I heard about that. Grapes are grown all over the place.
Including Australia. They\'ve been grown in England for many hundreds
of years.

But at nothing like the level the romans did in england.

**Again: Who gives a fuck what drunken Italians were doing a couple of
thousand years ago in an insignificant corner of the planet?


I am unsurprised that the Romans planted grape vines. They were
partial to the odd glass/jug of wine.

And the climate in england then made that very viable.

**OK.


Then it later wasn’t.

**OK.

Like I said: What happened in an insignificant corner of the planet a
couple of thousand years ago, is irrelevant.

Not when it’s the evidence of much warmer global temps than now.

**Incorrect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"


Just throwing it out there, but the possible reason why the Poms stopped
growing grapes, is because the drunken Italians left and the Poms went
back to beer. And, if you\'ve ever tasted Pommy wines, you\'ll understand
why the Poms drink beer.

Because the climate there is much cooler now than when the romans were
there.

**Incorrect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"

Pity about

The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a
period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic

However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
Victoria is a good thing,

That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
to believe that it would happen now.

\"Now\"? Nope. In a 100 or so years? As we rapidly approach the
\'tipping point\',

There is no evidence of any tipping point.

That\'s because we have not reached it yet.

But no evidence that there is any tipping point given that
that wasn’t see when the romans were growing much
better wine in england than is possible now and the
vikings were growing much more in greenland than
is possible now.

**That\'s because CO2 was not responsible for the temporary warming
experienced back when the drunken Italians were wandering around Europe.
It is not known with any precision why the warming occurred back then.

Corse it is, climate varys, stupid. We even have ice ages and little ice
ages at times.

However, there is evidence that the tipping point is being approached:

Bullshit there is.

**OK. You tell me:

What magical mechanism exists to cause the present warming to cease?

Same one that produces ice ages and little ice ages
and what produced the signicant drop in temps
post 1940, natural variation in world climate.

Take as much time and space as you need to respond.


https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/massive-craters-in-siberia-are-exploding-into-existence-whats-causing-them

How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

**The Poms are good at beer and crap at wine. It\'s a cultural thing, not a
climate thing. The drunken Italians prefer their own particular crap wine.
The French, Aussies and Americans are best at making decent wine.
Sometimes the Germans do a good drop. And the Kiwis. The Poms? Nup. Never.

They did during the roman warm period.

As you are no doubt aware, methane is around 20 TIMES more potent as a
GHG than CO2. There are billions of Tonnes of CO2 in permafrost regions.
As the methane is released, then greenhouse effects will increase. This
will lead to more warming and more methane release. Allied with this,
will be the release of CO2 from the oceans, as the oceans warm further.
At some point, the effect will be impossible to reverse. Then we will be
fucked.

How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

**And once more: A LOCALISED climate change

It wasn’t.

The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a
period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic

> is not a planet-wide one.

The change in climate seen lately isn\'t either.

it is absolutely possible.

How odd that that never happened even when the
CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.

You really have done zero research, haven\'t you? NOT ONE TEENY TINY BIT.
Look at this:

Don’t need to, that’s what I had researched.

You not only have to research more, but you need to read your own damned
cites.

You in spades with the roman warm period and global cooling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

CO2 levels were estimated to be thousands of ppm 50 million years ago.

What I was referring to.

**Points:

* Humans didn\'t exist back then.

Irrelevant. Clearly that was natural variation in climate.

> * It was MUCH hotter back then.

But didn’t see no flora and fauna as you hysterically claimed.

then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.

More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.

Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.

Don’t need to, we didn’t see 60 degree C days when the CO2 levels
were much higher than they are today. Its just your silly straw man.

Actually, that is bullshit:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

**Cite.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

I hasten to add that no human was alive when CO2 levels and temps were
that high.

But plenty of flora and fauna were when the CO2 level was
twice what it is now.

**And it was MUCH hotter. Tell me: How long would it take for humans to
evolve to deal with temperatures that high?

They don’t need to, we have invented funky stuff like air conditioning.

How long would it take to develop crops and animals to survive those
temps?

Again, they survived fine when it was much hotter than it is now.

No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.

Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.

That shutting down the use of coal and fossil fuels.

No point in doing anything that stupid.

Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to rise
at a faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past million
years.

Pity we didn’t see 60C even when the CO2
levels were much higher than they are now.

Wrong:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

**Cite.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

That said, it is correct to say that CO2 levels are higher today than at
any time in (at least) the past million years. Same with temperatures.

Pity that there was plenty of flora and fauna around well before that.

**Could humans eat it?

Obviously the fauna could.

> Could we survive such temperatures?

Corse we could given that we have invented air conditioning.

There are lots of viable alternatives.

No need for them.

There\'s no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels, as
there are viable alternatives.

You stupidly refuse the much more viable alternative, nukes.

IF the morons running this country decided TODAY, to build a nuke, it
would not be generating power for 20 years.

That’s bullshit, the chinese build them much quicker than that.

**Points:

* We are not likely to buy a Chinese reactor anytime soon.

But that shows it can be done.

> * Would you trust a Chinese reactor?

Irrelevant, that shows that its perfectly possible.

In 20 years, we could fill a tiny corner of SA, WA and NT with solar PV
and generate enough power to satisfy the entire planet\'s needs for
electricity.

But no viable way of getting it to the rest of the world.

**Utter bullshit. We can:

* Use HVDC cable to the coast.
* Send power via undersea HVDC cable.

Doesn’t work to supply the entire world.

> * Convert electricity to H2 and freight it to all over the joint.

Stupid way to do things instead of using nukes where the power is needed.

However, my point was a thought experiment (mostly), since we have no
politicians in this country capable of independent thought,

Politicians are irrelevant to stuff like that. They
didn’t produce planes, ships, cars, etc etc etc.

nor scientific knowledge and they can\'t think past the next election
anyway. However, we do have a couple of entrepreneurs who want to make a
difference.

Who wont in fact do anything of the sort that way.

We could be an energy exporter.

Not even to singapore, makes much more
sense to have more nukes there instead.

**We\'ll see:

It flop, just like the stupid tidal power systems all have.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/monster-solar-farm-backed-by-atlassian-founder-about-to-get-significantly-bigger-20210820-p58kpm.html


Fortunately, we have some forward thinking entrepreneurs in this
country:

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/northern-territory-to-become-home-to-the-worlds-largest-solar-farm/

Taint gunna happen, you watch.

**We\'ll see.

 

[Rod Speed]

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

**Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains,
who is
incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.

** That that describes the TW ratbag quite well.

My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.

** Massive understatement

Too old. HOWEVER, there was a worse choice for POTUS:

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name

** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.

**We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is
the most
insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And
yes,
that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is
worse.


** For the uninformed:

1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
decades.

**\"besotted\", \"for two decades\"? Try FIVE decades. I\'ve been
reading everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since
the early 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite
mathematician, Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th
century. That hypothesis was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the
end of the 19th century. Despite more than 100 years of trying,
deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump,
et al) of AGW theory have been unable to prove Arrhenius wrong.
AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the subject with me, I
am always ready.

2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.

**Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both
believe that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives
in the sky and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire
history of humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to
show that such a monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person
who subscribes to such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel
that such a monster exists, then you need to seek psycho-therapy.

3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep
face.

**\"Hate\"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable
of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don\'t
\"hate\" them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those
morons who kept them in government.

4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google
it)
5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.

**What \"extreme ideas\" do you refer to? AGW theory? You\'re on VERY
thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the
mean time, spend a little effort here:

www.ippc.ch

The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,

There is no \"if\".

Wrong.

Nope. Correct.

We\'ll see...

There is no \"we\'ll see\'. We are already seeing it.

No we are not with your hysterical claim about 60C

**\"WE\" won\'t see 60 degree C heatwave days, but those who come after us
will.

That remains to be seen given that they weren\'t
seen when we last saw CO2 levels of 600 ppm.

We haven\'t even seen england returning to the
climate that was there when the romans were
there and clearly civilisation survived that fine.

Are you STILL blathering on about a bunch of drunken Italians, in an
insignificant corner of the planet?

That wasn’t just an isolated example of local climate
change, neither were the ice ages or greenland when
the vikings chose to colonise there.

Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long
time.

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

Bullshit.

Fact.

Then YOU need to cite where \"those same people (who are studying AGW
theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling\".

The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

The first para from YOUR cite:

\"Global cooling was a conjecture,

So is AGW

> especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling

It wasn’t just about imminent, some or the scientists
stated that we had actually seen cooling since 1940
and that that was continuing.

> of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation,

Just like your hysterical claims about 60C temps.

due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing. Some press
reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;

Not just press reports, by the scientists of the day too.

these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time,
which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
greenhouse effect.[1]\"

Plenty of scientists said that too, it wasn’t just the press.

> \'Global cooling\' was bullshit then and it is bullshit now.

That remains to be seen too. We do know
that we do get ice ages periodically.

> Since Arrhenius proved the connection between CO2 and rising temperatures,

But couldn’t explain why we didn’t see anything
special average temperature wise when the CO2
level was over 600ppm.

> no climate scientist has bought into your bullshit.

It isn\'t my bullshit and hardly any climate scientist is
actually stupid enough to run your line about 60C

The guys who were babbling on about \'global cooling\' were the
imaginative writers of Time Magazine:

Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on
about.

No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

There was in fact a hell of a lot more claiming that than one time
article.
It was in fact just reporting on what they were claiming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Who is \"they\"?

The scientists of the day. including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
(NAS)

> A bunch of idiots? Not interested in what idiots think about AGW.

Having fun thrashing yet another straw man ?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of note.
It is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as credible as
a Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.

NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.

Wrong, as always.

Then present your evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

As I stated before:

Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
temperatures more than 100 years ago.

How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
and haven\'t returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

What the fuck are you smoking. I don\'t give a fuck about weather
conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.

It wasn’t just there or in greenland.

And yet, you blather on about a bunch of drunken Italians in England.

Because that is the evidence of significantly higher temperatures
than now which not only didn’t produce any tipping point, actually
improved things for civilisation at that time and we didn’t see any
60C heatwaves or the decimation of all flora and fauna either.

You\'re talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck\'s sake.
Climatology is concerned with AVERAGE climate conditions on a
planet-wide scale. To put that into perspective, England represents
1/4000th the surface area of this planet. Four fifths of fuck-all.

1.1 degrees C AVERAGE temperature rise is both measurable and
significant.

Pity it was more than that when the romans were in england and the
vikings in greenland.

**Again: Local climate effects are not the issue. Planet-wide climate is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"

Our climate is warmer today, than it was in 2000.

Climate varys, that’s no news.

Therefore, the temporary, local warming back then, was cooler than it is
today.

Not in england.

Here is a record of temperatures for the past 2,000 years.

Pity about before that.

Planet-wide, NOT a minuscule 1/4000th section of the planet.

More of your flagrant dishonesty given that

The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a
period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

NOT ONCE, in the intervening 120-odd years, has any credible evidence
been put forward to disprove Arrhenius\' theory.

What I just stated blows it completely out of the fucking water.

**How? You cite a bunch of drunken Italians planting grapes as evidence
of something?

You\'re kidding.

Keep this shit up and you will be ignored.

**Oh dear. You have me scared now.


If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like
the one that Arrhenius won.

Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
on the planet is wrong.

That claim is pure bullshit.

Nup. Fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

Pity about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation
wise.

Easy to claim.

Of course it\'s easy to claim. The evidence is utterly and completely
overwhelming.

More bullshit with the fact that the average temperatures have
done nothing even remotely like what the CO2 levels have done.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Not true about the time when its was well over 600ppm

**OK. When did that occur?
What was the average temperature of the planet when CO2 levels were that
high?

Cite please.



Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
way it happens, the two events are closely linked.


the world worked fine when the romans were growing
grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.

Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.

The romans didn’t need that.

In Greenland?

In europe.

Then stop babbling on about Greenland. I still don\'t know why you are
babbling on about a bunch of drunken Italians growing grapes in an
insignificant corner of the planet, but I guess it means something to
you.

It’s the evidence that average temps were much higher then
and we survived that fine.

**It\'s evidence that average temps were somewhat COOLER than they were
today.

Not in the roman warm period they weren\'t.

First I heard about that. Grapes are grown all over the place.
Including Australia. They\'ve been grown in England for many hundreds
of years.

But at nothing like the level the romans did in england.

**Again: Who gives a fuck what drunken Italians were doing a couple of
thousand years ago in an insignificant corner of the planet?


I am unsurprised that the Romans planted grape vines. They were
partial to the odd glass/jug of wine.

And the climate in england then made that very viable.

**OK.


Then it later wasn’t.

**OK.

Like I said: What happened in an insignificant corner of the planet a
couple of thousand years ago, is irrelevant.

Not when it’s the evidence of much warmer global temps than now.

**Incorrect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"


Just throwing it out there, but the possible reason why the Poms stopped
growing grapes, is because the drunken Italians left and the Poms went
back to beer. And, if you\'ve ever tasted Pommy wines, you\'ll understand
why the Poms drink beer.

Because the climate there is much cooler now than when the romans were
there.

**Incorrect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"

Pity about

The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a
period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic

However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
Victoria is a good thing,

That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
to believe that it would happen now.

\"Now\"? Nope. In a 100 or so years? As we rapidly approach the
\'tipping point\',

There is no evidence of any tipping point.

That\'s because we have not reached it yet.

But no evidence that there is any tipping point given that
that wasn’t see when the romans were growing much
better wine in england than is possible now and the
vikings were growing much more in greenland than
is possible now.

**That\'s because CO2 was not responsible for the temporary warming
experienced back when the drunken Italians were wandering around Europe.
It is not known with any precision why the warming occurred back then.

Corse it is, climate varys, stupid. We even have ice ages and little ice
ages at times.

However, there is evidence that the tipping point is being approached:

Bullshit there is.

**OK. You tell me:

What magical mechanism exists to cause the present warming to cease?

Same one that produces ice ages and little ice ages
and what produced the signicant drop in temps
post 1940, natural variation in world climate.

Take as much time and space as you need to respond.


https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/massive-craters-in-siberia-are-exploding-into-existence-whats-causing-them

How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

**The Poms are good at beer and crap at wine. It\'s a cultural thing, not a
climate thing. The drunken Italians prefer their own particular crap wine.
The French, Aussies and Americans are best at making decent wine.
Sometimes the Germans do a good drop. And the Kiwis. The Poms? Nup. Never.

They did during the roman warm period.

As you are no doubt aware, methane is around 20 TIMES more potent as a
GHG than CO2. There are billions of Tonnes of CO2 in permafrost regions.
As the methane is released, then greenhouse effects will increase. This
will lead to more warming and more methane release. Allied with this,
will be the release of CO2 from the oceans, as the oceans warm further.
At some point, the effect will be impossible to reverse. Then we will be
fucked.

How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

**And once more: A LOCALISED climate change

It wasn’t.

The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a
period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic

> is not a planet-wide one.

The change in climate seen lately isn\'t either.

it is absolutely possible.

How odd that that never happened even when the
CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.

You really have done zero research, haven\'t you? NOT ONE TEENY TINY BIT.
Look at this:

Don’t need to, that’s what I had researched.

You not only have to research more, but you need to read your own damned
cites.

You in spades with the roman warm period and global cooling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

CO2 levels were estimated to be thousands of ppm 50 million years ago.

What I was referring to.

**Points:

* Humans didn\'t exist back then.

Irrelevant. Clearly that was natural variation in climate.

> * It was MUCH hotter back then.

But didn’t see no flora and fauna as you hysterically claimed.

then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.

More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.

Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.

Don’t need to, we didn’t see 60 degree C days when the CO2 levels
were much higher than they are today. Its just your silly straw man.

Actually, that is bullshit:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

**Cite.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

I hasten to add that no human was alive when CO2 levels and temps were
that high.

But plenty of flora and fauna were when the CO2 level was
twice what it is now.

**And it was MUCH hotter. Tell me: How long would it take for humans to
evolve to deal with temperatures that high?

They don’t need to, we have invented funky stuff like air conditioning.

How long would it take to develop crops and animals to survive those
temps?

Again, they survived fine when it was much hotter than it is now.

No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.

Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.

That shutting down the use of coal and fossil fuels.

No point in doing anything that stupid.

Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to rise
at a faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past million
years.

Pity we didn’t see 60C even when the CO2
levels were much higher than they are now.

Wrong:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

**Cite.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

That said, it is correct to say that CO2 levels are higher today than at
any time in (at least) the past million years. Same with temperatures.

Pity that there was plenty of flora and fauna around well before that.

**Could humans eat it?

Obviously the fauna could.

> Could we survive such temperatures?

Corse we could given that we have invented air conditioning.

There are lots of viable alternatives.

No need for them.

There\'s no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels, as
there are viable alternatives.

You stupidly refuse the much more viable alternative, nukes.

IF the morons running this country decided TODAY, to build a nuke, it
would not be generating power for 20 years.

That’s bullshit, the chinese build them much quicker than that.

**Points:

* We are not likely to buy a Chinese reactor anytime soon.

But that shows it can be done.

> * Would you trust a Chinese reactor?

Irrelevant, that shows that its perfectly possible.

In 20 years, we could fill a tiny corner of SA, WA and NT with solar PV
and generate enough power to satisfy the entire planet\'s needs for
electricity.

But no viable way of getting it to the rest of the world.

**Utter bullshit. We can:

* Use HVDC cable to the coast.
* Send power via undersea HVDC cable.

Doesn’t work to supply the entire world.

> * Convert electricity to H2 and freight it to all over the joint.

Stupid way to do things instead of using nukes where the power is needed.

However, my point was a thought experiment (mostly), since we have no
politicians in this country capable of independent thought,

Politicians are irrelevant to stuff like that. They
didn’t produce planes, ships, cars, etc etc etc.

nor scientific knowledge and they can\'t think past the next election
anyway. However, we do have a couple of entrepreneurs who want to make a
difference.

Who wont in fact do anything of the sort that way.

We could be an energy exporter.

Not even to singapore, makes much more
sense to have more nukes there instead.

**We\'ll see:

It flop, just like the stupid tidal power systems all have.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/monster-solar-farm-backed-by-atlassian-founder-about-to-get-significantly-bigger-20210820-p58kpm.html


Fortunately, we have some forward thinking entrepreneurs in this
country:

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/northern-territory-to-become-home-to-the-worlds-largest-solar-farm/

Taint gunna happen, you watch.

**We\'ll see.

 

[Rod Speed]

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
Phil Allison wrote
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

**Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant shit-for-brains,
who is
incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.

** That that describes the TW ratbag quite well.

My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.

** Massive understatement

Too old. HOWEVER, there was a worse choice for POTUS:

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name

** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.

**We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM is
the most
insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office. And
yes,
that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably, Scummo is
worse.


** For the uninformed:

1. TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for two
decades.

**\"besotted\", \"for two decades\"? Try FIVE decades. I\'ve been
reading everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory since
the early 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite
mathematician, Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th
century. That hypothesis was confirmed by Arrhenius, before the
end of the 19th century. Despite more than 100 years of trying,
deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones, Murdoch, Trump,
et al) of AGW theory have been unable to prove Arrhenius wrong.
AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate the subject with me, I
am always ready.

2. The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.

**Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both
believe that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who lives
in the sky and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the entire
history of humanity, has there been any verifiable evidence to
show that such a monster exists, or has ever existed. ANY person
who subscribes to such beliefs is clearly delusional. If you feel
that such a monster exists, then you need to seek psycho-therapy.

3. So he has an overwhelming need to hate them - just to keep
face.

**\"Hate\"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably incapable
of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up badly. I don\'t
\"hate\" them. I am, however, profoundly disappointed in those
morons who kept them in government.

4. TW is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect ( Google
it)
5. TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.

**What \"extreme ideas\" do you refer to? AGW theory? You\'re on VERY
thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me. In the
mean time, spend a little effort here:

www.ippc.ch

The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,

There is no \"if\".

Wrong.

Nope. Correct.

We\'ll see...

There is no \"we\'ll see\'. We are already seeing it.

No we are not with your hysterical claim about 60C

**\"WE\" won\'t see 60 degree C heatwave days, but those who come after us
will.

That remains to be seen given that they weren\'t
seen when we last saw CO2 levels of 600 ppm.

We haven\'t even seen england returning to the
climate that was there when the romans were
there and clearly civilisation survived that fine.

Are you STILL blathering on about a bunch of drunken Italians, in an
insignificant corner of the planet?

That wasn’t just an isolated example of local climate
change, neither were the ice ages or greenland when
the vikings chose to colonise there.

Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long
time.

It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
claiming we were seeing global cooling.

Bullshit.

Fact.

Then YOU need to cite where \"those same people (who are studying AGW
theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling\".

The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

The first para from YOUR cite:

\"Global cooling was a conjecture,

So is AGW

> especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling

It wasn’t just about imminent, some or the scientists
stated that we had actually seen cooling since 1940
and that that was continuing.

> of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation,

Just like your hysterical claims about 60C temps.

due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing. Some press
reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;

Not just press reports, by the scientists of the day too.

these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time,
which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
greenhouse effect.[1]\"

Plenty of scientists said that too, it wasn’t just the press.

> \'Global cooling\' was bullshit then and it is bullshit now.

That remains to be seen too. We do know
that we do get ice ages periodically.

> Since Arrhenius proved the connection between CO2 and rising temperatures,

But couldn’t explain why we didn’t see anything
special average temperature wise when the CO2
level was over 600ppm.

> no climate scientist has bought into your bullshit.

It isn\'t my bullshit and hardly any climate scientist is
actually stupid enough to run your line about 60C

The guys who were babbling on about \'global cooling\' were the
imaginative writers of Time Magazine:

Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on
about.

No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.

There was in fact a hell of a lot more claiming that than one time
article.
It was in fact just reporting on what they were claiming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Who is \"they\"?

The scientists of the day. including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
(NAS)

> A bunch of idiots? Not interested in what idiots think about AGW.

Having fun thrashing yet another straw man ?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of note.
It is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as credible as
a Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.

NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.

Wrong, as always.

Then present your evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

As I stated before:

Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
temperatures more than 100 years ago.

How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
and haven\'t returned to what the romans saw in england etc.

What the fuck are you smoking. I don\'t give a fuck about weather
conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.

It wasn’t just there or in greenland.

And yet, you blather on about a bunch of drunken Italians in England.

Because that is the evidence of significantly higher temperatures
than now which not only didn’t produce any tipping point, actually
improved things for civilisation at that time and we didn’t see any
60C heatwaves or the decimation of all flora and fauna either.

You\'re talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck\'s sake.
Climatology is concerned with AVERAGE climate conditions on a
planet-wide scale. To put that into perspective, England represents
1/4000th the surface area of this planet. Four fifths of fuck-all.

1.1 degrees C AVERAGE temperature rise is both measurable and
significant.

Pity it was more than that when the romans were in england and the
vikings in greenland.

**Again: Local climate effects are not the issue. Planet-wide climate is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"

Our climate is warmer today, than it was in 2000.

Climate varys, that’s no news.

Therefore, the temporary, local warming back then, was cooler than it is
today.

Not in england.

Here is a record of temperatures for the past 2,000 years.

Pity about before that.

Planet-wide, NOT a minuscule 1/4000th section of the planet.

More of your flagrant dishonesty given that

The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a
period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

NOT ONCE, in the intervening 120-odd years, has any credible evidence
been put forward to disprove Arrhenius\' theory.

What I just stated blows it completely out of the fucking water.

**How? You cite a bunch of drunken Italians planting grapes as evidence
of something?

You\'re kidding.

Keep this shit up and you will be ignored.

**Oh dear. You have me scared now.


If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize, like
the one that Arrhenius won.

Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate scientist
on the planet is wrong.

That claim is pure bullshit.

Nup. Fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

Pity about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and observation
wise.

Easy to claim.

Of course it\'s easy to claim. The evidence is utterly and completely
overwhelming.

More bullshit with the fact that the average temperatures have
done nothing even remotely like what the CO2 levels have done.

**Wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Not true about the time when its was well over 600ppm

**OK. When did that occur?
What was the average temperature of the planet when CO2 levels were that
high?

Cite please.



Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag. Whichever
way it happens, the two events are closely linked.


the world worked fine when the romans were growing
grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.

Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.

The romans didn’t need that.

In Greenland?

In europe.

Then stop babbling on about Greenland. I still don\'t know why you are
babbling on about a bunch of drunken Italians growing grapes in an
insignificant corner of the planet, but I guess it means something to
you.

It’s the evidence that average temps were much higher then
and we survived that fine.

**It\'s evidence that average temps were somewhat COOLER than they were
today.

Not in the roman warm period they weren\'t.

First I heard about that. Grapes are grown all over the place.
Including Australia. They\'ve been grown in England for many hundreds
of years.

But at nothing like the level the romans did in england.

**Again: Who gives a fuck what drunken Italians were doing a couple of
thousand years ago in an insignificant corner of the planet?


I am unsurprised that the Romans planted grape vines. They were
partial to the odd glass/jug of wine.

And the climate in england then made that very viable.

**OK.


Then it later wasn’t.

**OK.

Like I said: What happened in an insignificant corner of the planet a
couple of thousand years ago, is irrelevant.

Not when it’s the evidence of much warmer global temps than now.

**Incorrect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"


Just throwing it out there, but the possible reason why the Poms stopped
growing grapes, is because the drunken Italians left and the Poms went
back to beer. And, if you\'ve ever tasted Pommy wines, you\'ll understand
why the Poms drink beer.

Because the climate there is much cooler now than when the romans were
there.

**Incorrect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

\"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000.\"

Pity about

The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a
period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic

However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
Victoria is a good thing,

That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
to believe that it would happen now.

\"Now\"? Nope. In a 100 or so years? As we rapidly approach the
\'tipping point\',

There is no evidence of any tipping point.

That\'s because we have not reached it yet.

But no evidence that there is any tipping point given that
that wasn’t see when the romans were growing much
better wine in england than is possible now and the
vikings were growing much more in greenland than
is possible now.

**That\'s because CO2 was not responsible for the temporary warming
experienced back when the drunken Italians were wandering around Europe.
It is not known with any precision why the warming occurred back then.

Corse it is, climate varys, stupid. We even have ice ages and little ice
ages at times.

However, there is evidence that the tipping point is being approached:

Bullshit there is.

**OK. You tell me:

What magical mechanism exists to cause the present warming to cease?

Same one that produces ice ages and little ice ages
and what produced the signicant drop in temps
post 1940, natural variation in world climate.

Take as much time and space as you need to respond.


https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/massive-craters-in-siberia-are-exploding-into-existence-whats-causing-them

How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

**The Poms are good at beer and crap at wine. It\'s a cultural thing, not a
climate thing. The drunken Italians prefer their own particular crap wine.
The French, Aussies and Americans are best at making decent wine.
Sometimes the Germans do a good drop. And the Kiwis. The Poms? Nup. Never.

They did during the roman warm period.

As you are no doubt aware, methane is around 20 TIMES more potent as a
GHG than CO2. There are billions of Tonnes of CO2 in permafrost regions.
As the methane is released, then greenhouse effects will increase. This
will lead to more warming and more methane release. Allied with this,
will be the release of CO2 from the oceans, as the oceans warm further.
At some point, the effect will be impossible to reverse. Then we will be
fucked.

How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
were growing much more in greenland than is possible now

**And once more: A LOCALISED climate change

It wasn’t.

The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a
period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic

> is not a planet-wide one.

The change in climate seen lately isn\'t either.

it is absolutely possible.

How odd that that never happened even when the
CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.

You really have done zero research, haven\'t you? NOT ONE TEENY TINY BIT.
Look at this:

Don’t need to, that’s what I had researched.

You not only have to research more, but you need to read your own damned
cites.

You in spades with the roman warm period and global cooling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

CO2 levels were estimated to be thousands of ppm 50 million years ago.

What I was referring to.

**Points:

* Humans didn\'t exist back then.

Irrelevant. Clearly that was natural variation in climate.

> * It was MUCH hotter back then.

But didn’t see no flora and fauna as you hysterically claimed.

then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.

More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.

Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.

Don’t need to, we didn’t see 60 degree C days when the CO2 levels
were much higher than they are today. Its just your silly straw man.

Actually, that is bullshit:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

**Cite.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

I hasten to add that no human was alive when CO2 levels and temps were
that high.

But plenty of flora and fauna were when the CO2 level was
twice what it is now.

**And it was MUCH hotter. Tell me: How long would it take for humans to
evolve to deal with temperatures that high?

They don’t need to, we have invented funky stuff like air conditioning.

How long would it take to develop crops and animals to survive those
temps?

Again, they survived fine when it was much hotter than it is now.

No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.

Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.

That shutting down the use of coal and fossil fuels.

No point in doing anything that stupid.

Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to rise
at a faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past million
years.

Pity we didn’t see 60C even when the CO2
levels were much higher than they are now.

Wrong:

Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm

**Cite.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

That said, it is correct to say that CO2 levels are higher today than at
any time in (at least) the past million years. Same with temperatures.

Pity that there was plenty of flora and fauna around well before that.

**Could humans eat it?

Obviously the fauna could.

> Could we survive such temperatures?

Corse we could given that we have invented air conditioning.

There are lots of viable alternatives.

No need for them.

There\'s no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels, as
there are viable alternatives.

You stupidly refuse the much more viable alternative, nukes.

IF the morons running this country decided TODAY, to build a nuke, it
would not be generating power for 20 years.

That’s bullshit, the chinese build them much quicker than that.

**Points:

* We are not likely to buy a Chinese reactor anytime soon.

But that shows it can be done.

> * Would you trust a Chinese reactor?

Irrelevant, that shows that its perfectly possible.

In 20 years, we could fill a tiny corner of SA, WA and NT with solar PV
and generate enough power to satisfy the entire planet\'s needs for
electricity.

But no viable way of getting it to the rest of the world.

**Utter bullshit. We can:

* Use HVDC cable to the coast.
* Send power via undersea HVDC cable.

Doesn’t work to supply the entire world.

> * Convert electricity to H2 and freight it to all over the joint.

Stupid way to do things instead of using nukes where the power is needed.

However, my point was a thought experiment (mostly), since we have no
politicians in this country capable of independent thought,

Politicians are irrelevant to stuff like that. They
didn’t produce planes, ships, cars, etc etc etc.

nor scientific knowledge and they can\'t think past the next election
anyway. However, we do have a couple of entrepreneurs who want to make a
difference.

Who wont in fact do anything of the sort that way.

We could be an energy exporter.

Not even to singapore, makes much more
sense to have more nukes there instead.

**We\'ll see:

It flop, just like the stupid tidal power systems all have.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/monster-solar-farm-backed-by-atlassian-founder-about-to-get-significantly-bigger-20210820-p58kpm.html


Fortunately, we have some forward thinking entrepreneurs in this
country:

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/northern-territory-to-become-home-to-the-worlds-largest-solar-farm/

Taint gunna happen, you watch.

**We\'ll see.