Saturday, April 6, 2013

'Man-made warming decimating bird populations world-wide!'


  1. Very funny. And just as relevant to reality as your other threads attempting to disprove AGW.

    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 6, 2013 at 8:57 AM

      backfield, I'm going to gratuitously light two propane patio heaters in your honor today (it's 72F and rising). And as I drive around in my UTV doing a bit of yardwork, I'll leave the engine running. Just 'cause I love ya.

      James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade."
      -- The Economist (3/30/2013)

    2. Georgie,

      I've had a look at the article in the 'Economist'. The reference to James Hansen is a throwaway line, without context, and without giving him any chance to explain.

      I've read the article. Did you? If so, how can you possibly be not be even a little worried? The article points out that sensitivity to doubling greenhouse gases mightn't be as great as thought. 1.9 degrees, possibly 2.9 degrees Celsius as its maximum, and it might take longer to happen - more than 70 years.

      A problem for your grandchildren and great grandchildren. Fair enough. Don't think about them, because they aren't thinking about you.

      Why can't you Americans convert to the metric system? It's easy and straightforward. 72 degrees Fahrenheit is 22 degrees Celsius. Why do you need propane patio heaters? In Perth, it's been unusually warm for April, with maximum temperatures of up to 35 degrees Celsius (almost beating the records from 1998 - a warm el Nino year- officially we are still in a la Nina year, which should be cooler).

      And by the way. It's 'bachfiend', not 'backfield'.

  2. bachfire, AGW is being debunked daily by honest and lucid climatologists at Watts Up With That.

    Go have a look and educate yourself!

    1. Georgie ans Pepe,

      I leave comments for the organ grinder to respond to, and I keep getting replies from the .... Actually, that would be an insult to tailed primates.

  3. Mike,

    It is pretty obvious that AGW is being dumped by the more astute climatologists in favour of cyclical climate models.
    The scandals, outright lies by politicians, cash grabs, and nakedly globalist schemes, and by no means the least HONEST science have battered AGW into a corner.

    That is not to say there is no concern about micro-climates etc. withe regards to toxins and gases. But, it is becoming more and more obvious that the carbon taxes are simply another means to redistribute wealth (ie steal money in the name of 'environmentalism' and funnel it to pet projects.)

    That does not mean the AGW gang will give up, or even that they should. They need to keep banging that drum till the skins break and the sticks shatter. That's the way things are done, I suppose. We cannot expect people so devoted to an idea not to keep it near their hearts, especially when it enriches them personally.
    What they do need to do is get a grasp of their own theories and apply them logically - ie get out of my wallet.
    The desperate attempts to guild these ideas with scientific surety are pathetic. The latest laugh I had was a headline that read something like 'How global warming is making polar icecaps grow' or something along those lines. While it was based on something I could only describe as science fiction, it is a subtle shift to cyclical models, with a good pound of guilty (ie pay up) psychology mixed in. It seems the 'pay up' is the only constant in this theory.

    Lay off the monkey stuff for goodness sake. Bonobos, apes, organ grinders - you have a fixation on primates, man. Get a grip. At least shift over to another phylum or species-grouping for a change. Your Yggdrasil is a big tree. Pick another branch!

    Pépé is neither uneducated or stupid, and attacking his wife like that is a cowardly, childish response. Hiding behind your monitor insulting people's families? Lame and low.
    Attack his argument, even attack HIM - but levelling comments like that about a man's wife is absolutely uncalled for.
    Consider for a moment: Anyone reading these posts will correlate your behaviour with your beliefs. Is that the image you want people to have of your clique? Do you want them to think all closet gay, socialist, self hating apostate-Jew, atheist, Dutch teenagers think the way you do? If not, start acting like a semi intelligent sissy teenager - and leave out the attacks on people's families.
    In the mean time, perhaps you should lay off the drugs instead of recommending others take them. The SUI's do not seem to be working for you AT ALL.

    1. PS The Chicken looks delish!

    2. CrusadeRex,

      I have a fixation on primates, because we are primates. I won't change to another phyllum because chordates are good enough for me. I can't compare Pepe to a mollusk, can I.

      Climate is cyclical. Ever heard of the Milankovich cycles? It's also driven by greenhouse gases. Without greenhouse gases, the average global temperature would be -18 degrees Celsius (according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, with an albedo of 0.30).

      Ever one of Pepe's denialist books he recommended noted that at the very beginning - and then the author proceeded to ignore it.

      Increasing greenhouse gases will cause global warming over the temperature the Earth would otherwise have. That is a fact that's due to the well known and well understood physical properties of greenhouse gases.

      The only uncertainties derive from other factors driving climate, such as solar output during the solar cycles (we are currently in a relative minimum) - which is entirely unpredictable - and whether there are negative feedbacks (reducing warming such as more low level clouds) sufficient to cancel out positive feedbacks (increasing warming such as loss of Arctic sea ice in Summer).

      I think I know the article you're referring to. Was it the one about the Antarctic? Actually, with regard to climate, the Antarctic isn't critical. It's the Arctic that is. We are currently in an ice age (there's ice at both poles), in an interglacial period, for the past 3 million years, during which time humans evolved and multiplied to a total of 7 billion now. The Antarctic has been ice covered for 30 million years.

      Troy's reference to Pepe's horse wasn't to his wife. Or at least I don't think it was. I took it to mean a criticism of Pepe's tired old habit of short random comments saying absolutely nothing. As a suggestion to avoid his usual rocking horse mountings.

    3. Bach,

      Lovely stuff. A wonderfully complex belief system.
      The Arctic is a wonderful environment to explore. Having been there several times and knowing people who live in the circle, I can sure see the changes there. Most of the logistical changes we have seen are to do with the shift of the magnetic pole. The polar bears, deer, and fish are doing just fine. So are the people, if you are even remotely interested in them.
      You failed to mention that shift. I am left wondering why. Sun cycles are indeed incredibly important, so is the location of the magnetic pole.
      Further, I find it bizarre an Australian would negate the effects of climate change on Antarctica. Very strange indeed. You do know which hemisphere you're in, don't you?
      But at least the bulk of your comment was about something your passionate about, even if the reasons are unclear.

      Finally, your defence of Troy is inane, to say the least.
      One does not need erectile drugs to mount a rocking horse. His play on words was plain for everyone to see.
      You compound my original point with regards to that.
      Now the reader can clearly see that not only will such zealots stoop to such lows, but their fellow travellers will rush to defend and obscure the meaning of their filthy insults.
      One is left wondering where truth fits in.

    4. CrusadeRex,

      The migration of the magnetic poles has nothing to do with climate. If you have contrary evidence, then show it.

      I know I'm in the Southern Hemisphere. And I know that the Antarctic and the Arctic behave differently regarding climate. The Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean. The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by continents. Big continents. The Antarctic was ice covered for 27 million years without affecting global climate much.

      You're ignoring the well understood physical properties of greenhouse gases. Completely.

      Regarding Troy's comment... I did write 'or at least I don't think it was'. You interpreted it to mean it referring to Pepe's wife. I took it more figuratively. Neither is explicitly stated. For all we know, Troy could be referring to Pepe's girlfriend. Although I don't think he has one, of course.

    5. Bach,

      The magnetic poles and the magnetic field have a great deal to do with climate. Surely you understand that the inflow of cosmic particle, specifically from the sun, has a great effect on our planet (ie solar wind)? Would you suggest, for example, that Mars's lack of a magnetosphere is a non factor it her climate? That there has been no out-gassing on Mars? I don't think you would. So why suggest that a shift in Earth's 'shields' is irrelevant to climate?

      How exactly does this effect climate? We're still learning, aren't we. But, like the sun, our magnetic poles, the magnetic field surrounding them, and the movement of those poles are obviously critical.
      Pray tell, Bach: What do scientists think happened to Mars? What gas vented when they (assume) the magnetic field was damaged or lost? Was it carbon dioxide, by any chance?

      As for ignoring the gasses, I did not. Localized emissions can have a great effect on microclimates.
      I would not contest that. Carbon dioxide is just one of the factors in that, but a relevant one. I just don't see it as the prime factor. The SUN, on the other hand....

      Regarding the Antarctic and Arctic ice caps: CURRENT science gives us those dates. I am not as convinced of the numbers as you are. I am interested in them, and compare them to past estimates and alternate ideas - but I am not convinced by anything I have read so far. Also, you may want to consider the sheer mass of the water ice in your neighbouring continent. Modern science estimates around 70% of the world's. That's a LOT of sweet water. A lot of potential for change in our oceans. That means currents. That means CLIMATE.

      Finally on Troy. One word: Viagra. I am happy you're unfamiliar with it, but perhaps you could look it up and see what it's for. It is not an aid for rocking on horses.
      Further again, suggesting Pépé is involved with an adulterous affair is only marginally less insulting to his wife. Why not read the article he posted, check it's sources and argue or concede his point? What exactly does Pépé's personal life and wife have to do with gas emissions or the XL pipeline? So far as I can tell: NOTHING. I don't need core samples or geo-magnetic readings to determine that, either.

  4. CrusadeRex,

    Thank you. You've proven that you're clueless, particularly after you'd derided me for not 'knowing' the enormous effect the migrating north magnetic pole has on climate.

    It has no effect. I'm well aware of the speculative cosmoclimatological theory. Weaker magnetic field, more cosmic rays hitting the Earth's atmosphere, more ionisations of gas molecules, more nuclei for cloud formation, more clouds. If low level cumulus clouds, then global cooling. If high cirrus clouds, then global warming.

    As I said - speculative.

    The Earth's magnetic field acts as a shield against the solar wind which would have otherwise blown away the Earth's atmosphere. It allows the Earth to have an atmosphere, any atmosphere. Mars doesn't have a magnetic field, and so has lost its atmosphere, also as a result of its weaker gravity.

    The Antarctic icecap doesn't have a great effect on global climate, because it's a continent surrounded by ocean. This has allowed a circumcontinental ocean current to have developed which has isolated the continent. Doesn't apply to the Arctic, which is an ocean surrounded by continents, so the currents flow north-south affecting global climate.

    I looked at Pepe's link. It was just to the home page. Not to an article to which I could respond. The actual articles listed change depending on when you access the home page, so the articles you saw were probably not the ones I saw.

    Troy's comment. He didn't mention Pepe's wife. Don't forget he's Dutch. For all we know, he might might be literally translating some Dutch expression into English. Perhaps something along the lines that someone who is making meaningless useless objections to suggestions is having equine congress. And amplified it by adding Viagra. Many English expressions literally translated are meaningless to a non-English speaker and vice versa.

    I still can't pin down exactly what sort of Creationist you are. Egnor claims to be an Old Earth Creationist, accepting that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old (although entertaining ideas that the Garden of Eden might be literally true). What are you? How old is the Earth? Just a ballpark figure please.

    Also, you made a slight error when you noted that the Antarctic has 70% of the Earth's water. It might be 70% of the Earth's freshwater, I don't know the exact figure, but that's only 3% of the total. A small percentage.
    You wanted to take offence and you took offence.

  5. Bach,

    "Thank you. You've proven that you're clueless, particularly after you'd derided me for not 'knowing' the enormous effect the migrating north magnetic pole has on climate."
    You get caught with your pants down, write an essay to prove MY point, and then call me clueless. Funny stuff, Bach.

    "It has no effect."
    No effect. Okay. As long as you say so.

    Re the Antarctic and currents:You do know that currents change, and that one of influences of that change is the presence of FRESH WATER?

    "I looked at Pepe's link. It was just to the home page. Not to an article to which I could respond. The actual articles listed change depending on when you access the home page, so the articles you saw were probably not the ones I saw."
    Fair enough, if you cannot see it you cannot respond to it. But then again, you did not start off by insulting the man's wife.

    Re Troy: Do traditional Dutch saying use viagra as a device? Give me a break, Bach. Play the devil's advocate and get paid the devil's wage.

    "I still can't pin down exactly what sort of Creationist you are."
    We are called Theists. We believe creation (including time-space) is continuous. Each moment of existence is the creation.
    When was the cosmos created? The cosmos IS created. That includes time. So the exact date of the Earth's formation according to creatures living inside time-space is mutable. In plain English: I does not matter WHEN. What matters IS. What matters is what we do with OUR time. The choices we make. The love we feel and react to.
    I am interested in the various theories and stories about the distant past, but I am far more interested in the nature of time itself.

    Re the water: Ice is fresh water. Sweet water is fresh water. Sorry if it was presented in a confusing fashion. I had assumed you understood that.

    1. CrusadeRex,

      Go back to your original comment in which you derided me for not 'knowing' the enormous effect that the migration of the north magnetic pole has on climate. No mention of the strength of the magnetic field, which might, possibly might, have an effect.

      I found a website with a video 'explaining' how the migration of the north magnetic pole might be affecting weather. The technical term used to describe the 'theory' is 'bullshit'. The 'logic' runs; the migration of the north magnetic pole is increasing, we've had some recent wild weather, Jupiter has had some change in its cloud bands, Saturn seems to have had some weather too, we've recently discovered Neptune has an aurora too,... No mechanism. No connection between the 'facts'.

      Again, the migration of the north magnetic pole has no effect on weather, let alone climate. A simple calculation explains why. The Sun's output of energy on the Earth is around 1,000 Watts per square metre. Weather is due to differences in heating of the Earth's surface, ranging from 1,000 Watts per square metre to zero. Weather results from processes balancing differences in surface temperatures. For the migrating north magnetic pole to cause any difference in weather it has to have a local effect similar order to that of the Sun's light (up to 1,000 Watts per square metre) which itself isn't affected by the magnetic field. How?

      Yep, I'm aware that the ocean currents change. The Younger Dryas period might have been due to a large discharge of fresh water from a very large inland sea into the North Atlantic freezing on the surface and shutting down the Gulf Stream causing a delay in coming out of the last glaciation about 12,500 years ago. Did God create that?

      I'm still trying to work out how a similar sudden discharge of fresh water from the Antarctic as a result of a very very sudden melt of the ice cap would have a similar effect. Again how?

      Your concept of time and creation is incoherent. You don't have anything sensible to say about science which deals with the flow of time and past cause and later effect.

      Give me a break. Troy didn't mention Pepe's wife. You read that into his comment to take offence. And you did. You don't know what Troy meant by his comment specifically. Nor do I.

    2. Bach,

      Your a tenacious fellow, I'll give you that.
      A crank's websites aside, what other research have you done on the subject? Ever been up that way? Ever spoken to the inhabitants? Ever seen the contingency files on the 'shift'? Ever been to the facilities used to study these features of our world?

      Why don't you just admit that the Earth's magnetic field is a critical engine for ALL systems on our world and that ANY sort of change COULD influence ALL our systems - INCLUDING climate? It's not a big deal that you don't understand it. The biggest military powers in the world have spent decades and many millions trying to understand what they are looking at and how it works. No one expects you to be omniscient. A simple point conceded would have totally disarmed my argument on that issue. Instead you argue by assertion and questionable maths. Is it your hope that nobody will look up out-gassing, the effects of the magnetosphere, or the research into it? Or is it just to scary to consider? Whatever the case, you should look into it and not simply discard the subject entirely as 'bullshit'. Very unscientific, and that's not like it?

      Glad to see you acknowledge the influence of sweet water on currents. We wont call it a concession, as you seem to go into a kind of shock at the mere mention of the word. Better just call me an idiot. I know it makes you feel better.

      "Did God create that?"
      God creates EVERYTHING and ALL potential, Bach. Always has, always will. So, yes.

      "I'm still trying to work out how a similar sudden discharge of fresh water from the Antarctic as a result of a very very sudden melt of the ice cap would have a similar effect. Again how?"
      The cap melts (in good measure), water is discharged in vast amounts and alters the current flow in the southern oceans. Those currents change the air currents and the climate is altered in the southern hemisphere.

      "Your concept of time and creation is incoherent. You don't have anything sensible to say about science which deals with the flow of time and past cause and later effect."
      It is not incoherence that prevents you, it is incomprehension. You cannot wrap your mind around the idea that TIME itself is linked to space, and that they are BOTH generated by an intelligent and purpose driven will. That they have a function. That POTENTIAL itself serves a function.
      It makes no sense to YOU.
      It would take pages to fully explain WHY I think the way I do, and some of it would violate oaths. Sufficed to say, I am not alone in these ideas. Not by a long shot.
      Further, I have no incentive or purpose to explain my ideas on these subject to you, Bach. Of what relevance are they to a discussion about magnetic poles and filthy insults.

      But, I will give you this much: Cause and effect are a reality to the conscious mind. It is all we know... well almost. We do see glimpses beyond in physics and high mathematics.
      To those of us WITHIN this specific 'point' in time-space, they are a reality. For something that exists above and beyond it is not the same restrictive linear reality that we experience.

    3. CNTD

      "Troy didn't mention Pepe's wife. You read that into his comment to take offence."
      Troy has spent time in Canada - in college no less. He knows Pépé is Canadian. He knows Pépé is an older guy and is married. He knows that 'old horse' is an expression that means old woman here. He knows that viagra is a erectile drug. Do the maths.
      Why don't you ask what Pépé took away from it?
      The other readers?
      Did I take offence? Sure. I think it's a new low for the kid. I also felt it was a poor reflection on the conversation.
      Ask yourself this: What exactly did it add to anything here? You and I have been having our usual invective laced back and forth. We don't agree. We may not even respect the other's opinion - but at LEAST when someone reads our comments they may take something away from it. Troy's insult? It is worthless. Worse than worthless. It will disgust any women (or men that respect them) who understand what he meant.
      Surely you can see that? Surely you will not continue to play games about meaning. Viagra is not an equestrian tool. Pépé is married. He is an older guy with adult children Troy's age.
      I like Pépé, I'll admit that. But, if he started insulting your wife I would think it a low blow and would note that I do.
      Can't you just concede that IF I am correct, it is a disgusting tactic to silence the man.
      As I said: Insult him, if you must... but leave his wife and kids alone.

      What's your take on the comments made to you? Do you think Troy is talking about a rocking horse, a bay mare, an analogue for your dogma, or YOUR WIFE?
      If you take no offence and think it is anything else, I will shut up and concede to Bach.

    4. CrusadeRex,

      The research I did on the migration of the north magnetic pole having an effect on climate was a 'Google' search on 'north magnetic pole migrating climate'. I got two relevant hits. One was a crank site. The other I got a 404 error. The others were conventitional sites discussing human migration and climate change with passing reference to poles, north and magnetic in some 'hits'.

      My account of the science of climate is correct. Yours isn't. Your insistence that God creates the world and everything in it from moment to moment is just nonsense. You might as well declare that God wills the current weather into existence from moment to moment. Greenhouse gases are irrelevant. The Sun is irrelevant. The Earth's magnetic field is irrelevant. God wills a blizzard into existence because he wants us to experience it, so putting on protective clothing or even staying inside is blasphemous...

      You're confusing proximate cause with ultimate cause. The way religious scientists get around to do real science, and still get to believe in God, is to use science to explain the proximate cause, the mechanism, of phenomena, and God as the ultimate cause, the agency.

      Asserting that God creates the world from moment to moment is also asserting that God willed the 9/11 suicide attacks. No wait, that's explained by human free will.

      I can turn that argument around. What happens if God exists and AGW is true? Using Egnor's anthropomorphic language, what if you face God and He asks 'why did you screwup the planet I gave you? Why didn't you use your free will to do the right thing regarding global warming?'

      I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying that you're very very science illiterate. Which I regard as a worse insult. Stupidity is innate, and you can't do anything about. Being science illiterate can be overcome, which you're too lazy to do (or motivated to be not).

      Troy's comment I took to be figurative, OK? I noted that that's what I thought, not what I knew. Pepe's feelings of insult don't count. It would prefer to have Troy's interpretation as to whether he was insulting Pepe's or his wife.

      And anyway, Pepe is an idiot. I've never hidden my disdain for him. But I've never mentioned his children or his wife, except for the one time that I noted that his eldest son was an atheist and estranged from him. Sad but true.

  6. Bach,
    The research I did on the migration of the north magnetic pole having an effect on climate was...
    Dig deeper, Bach.

    "My account of the science of climate is correct. Yours isn't."
    My account is that the account is incomplete. Yours is that the science is settled. We will have to agree to disagree, I am afraid.

    "The sun...The Earth's magnetic field is irrelevant."
    That is your argument, not mine. See above.

    "God creates the world and everything in it from moment to moment is just nonsense."
    So say you. I beg to differ. I think random emergence of reality from absolutely nothing for no purpose is literally nonsense.

    Re God's will: God's will is potential. He could will a storm into being, but he does not need to. He created the systems that allow for the storm.

    "Asserting that God creates the world from moment to moment is also asserting that God willed the 9/11 suicide attacks. No wait, that's explained by human free will."
    God created a cosmos where both good and evil can be chosen. Free will is the key, you are correct. Although I don't know why you raised the straw man just to burn him yourself. Not a wiccan are you?

    "You're confusing proximate cause with ultimate cause."
    No, Bach. You are. You assume that because God creates all, that nature is somehow nullified and that will is not existent. That is determinism. That is not how I see things.
    As I said, it would take pages to explain it thoroughly.
    Just reverse your paradigm. Think top down, and you'll get a much better idea of where I am coming from.

    "What happens if God exists and AGW is true? "
    The you and I are both off the mark.

    1. CTND

      " what if you face God and He asks 'why did you screwup the planet I gave you? Why didn't you use your free will to do the right thing regarding global warming?'"
      That is an excellent point and worth addressing. First off, He would know why. He would perhaps understand that many people oppose the movement because it is inherently anti-human. But for arguments sake, let's say His question was a rhetorical one.
      If AGW is a reality, we have a duty to God to recognize it and combat it in ways that do not violate His laws and commandments. We would be required to redirect the efforts to combat AGW (or any man made mess) in such a fashion that it did not impede the growth of our species or involve killing the innocent, for example. Perhaps, when considering pollution let's say, we have an urge to spread out and explore.
      Maybe it would be our duty to colonize other worlds and make them earth-like also? Just a guess, but this is after all a hypothetical.

      "I'm not saying you're stupid."
      Nor am I saying you are. Just philosophically and theologically illiterate. Not easily remedied without faith, but it is possible to counter.

      "Which I regard as a worse insult."
      Yes. A heretic. An A-positivist. I understand. It is a compliment to my ears. Insult away.

      "Being science illiterate can be overcome, which you're too lazy to do (or motivated to be not)."
      Yeah. That's me. Lazy bones.
      That's why I engage you in conversation. I am lazy and cannot be bothered to read your comments and interact with you. After all, it would be pointless, right? No maybe your right, I have hidden motivations. I am an alien who wants to turn Earth into a Venusian hell in order to move in my reptilian brethren. Muahahaha! Now pass me a tasty hamster!

      "Pepe's feelings of insult don't count."
      What a strange thing to write. That would be like me saying I don't care what my target does, so long as the .50 round I have fired leaves the barrel with good intention. So what if I blew his head off his shoulders, I was engaging a fly next to his head. LOL.

      "Troy's interpretation as to whether he was insulting Pepe's or his wife."
      I would like to hear it to, even if just for entertainment value. The silence, however, is deafening. I suspect that is because Troy likes you (your ideology, that is) and does not want to pull the rug from under your argument. He pleads the fifth.
      Maybe I am wrong. Maybe he will tell us why there are ancient Dutch sayings about erectile drugs and rocking horses.

      "And anyway, Pepe is an idiot."
      So that makes it okay? You dislike him and think him mentally inferior, so it's okay for Troy to insult his wife?

      "But I've never mentioned his children or his wife, except for the one time that I noted that his eldest son was an atheist and estranged from him. Sad but true."
      I don't recall the interaction. I don't imagine you were nasty about it. If you were, then shame on you too. You're old enough to know better. But, like I said: I don't imagine a man of your years would stoop so low.
      Anyway, for what it's worth he and his son have mended their ties and resolved their differences. That is both happy and true.

    2. CrusadeRex,

      Good to hear that Pepe has mended his ties with his eldest son. I read about it on your blog when Pepe sent you a copy of a poster his son had sent him attacking Jesus. And Pepe complained about how his son could be an atheist with his 2 (or was it 3?) beautiful children as 'proof' of God's existence (it's not).

      Pepe can be such an arsehole. Often his comments on threads are just a link to a photoshopped image. Of a man with his head up his butt. Charming. I suspect his arseholiness is the reason he'd repelled his son. I come from a mixed family - half my siblings are religious, half aren't. Religion just isn't a topic for family conversation.

      If Troy meant to insult Pepe, then I can excuse that. And Pepe is an idiot ++++. I still don't see an insult against Pepe's wife. If 'old horse' is a Canadian expression for 'woman' then it says something extremely negative about Canadians (fortunately 'Sheila' is no longer used in Australia).

      You're science illiterate. You reject the well understood and well known physics of greenhouse gasses, known for over a century, in favour of a highly speculative theory of migrating magnetic poles and changing strength of magnetic fields affecting climate. Which you don't even understand.

      I brought up 'free will' to turn it against you. You've decided that your free will has allowed you to ignore the need to understand the science and to continue doing nothing.

    3. Bach,

      Well, there is another difference between us. I do not excuse the insults to a family member, regardless of whom they are aimed at.
      Your suspicions about his son are incorrect.
      I know there is no love lost between you two. But that does not make the insult any less offensive.
      Consider for a moment how your condemnation of such a nastiness could have disarmed Pépé and made him more open to your ideas. Many good friends have begun their bond by butting heads.

      Sheila is indeed used by Australian servicemen. Continuously, in fact. I would go so far as to say that Australian military personnel can curse, slur, and offend with the best (worst) of NATO troops.

      Re Canadian slurs: Old horse is no more acceptable to us than 'old cow' is in England. Hence my offence at the use of the term. We are not a perfect people. I am not a perfect man. But there are lines that one should not cross.
      Apparently 'old horse' is NOT below certain Dutch youths, either. What does that say about them? According to you nothing, so long as they are 'onside'.

      I do not deny the physics of greenhouse gasses. I simply remain sceptical about the way in which their influences are presented and the pathetic power/money grabs made in the name of AGW.
      As I stated before, such gasses are obviously affecting the micro-climates of certain regions. But they are only a single factor. The paving over of greenbelts is another obvious one. And my comments regarding the magnetic field and poles are DIRECTLY related to the effects of our Sun and it's interaction with those fields.

      If that makes me illiterate in your eyes, so be it.
      As I have noted before, I am not a scientist - though I do work with scientists and engineers on a regular basis in my current capacity, which my adult son jokingly refers to as 'the Z files'. I command the security and intelligence division of a reverse engineering program at test range. So, I may have an idea or two based on the ideas of those men, but I do not claim to be a scientist myself.
      In fact, with few exceptions, I am increasing critical of that religious persuasion. I am a happy to be labelled a heretic.

      As for doing nothing, I have stated before that many of you would think me a 'green' in many ways. I drive a small 4x4 (fuel efficient 4 cyl) when I have to, I walk almost everywhere. When I take to the water, I do so in a sail boat or canoe. I recycle religiously. I compost my organic waste. I do not burn lights and flat-screens TV's all day and all night. I read used pulp books, not ones made of plastic and lithium. I don't even eat much meat any more - even if for alternate reasons. In doing so, I do not contribute to a bloody and wasteful industry. I also avoid GMO like the plague.

      I am regularly mocked and smeared at for these positions by many of my so called 'conservative' friends, just as I am for other positions by so called 'liberal' friends.

      So I am actually doing something. I am not major producer of toxins, gasses (only after beans), and other pollutants.
      I just don't play dialectics. I pick my battles carefully, and do not play for a 'team' in these matters.
      Please don't make such assumptions. Assertions that I do mischaracterize me and my position greatly.
      I want what is best for my people, my family, and my soul.
      If that makes me a bad person or a lousy Christian in your eyes, I cannot help it.

    4. CrusadeRex,

      You're science illiterate, because the Earth's magnetic field affects only the solar wind - charged particles emanating from the Sun - not the much more common uncharged photons of electromagnetic radiation. The photons aren't blocked by the magnetic field and cause warming.

      The solar wind could have only an indirect effect, if the magnetic field weakens sufficiently, and if enough reach the atmosphere to cause ionisation of air molecules to act as nuclei for cloud formation, and if the clouds are sufficient to cause either cooling (if low cumulus clouds) or warming (if high cirrus clouds). Absolutely speculative.

      You reject something that's well understood (greenhouse gasses) in favour of something that's highly speculative.

      Your bullshit detector needs readjustment.

      Anyway, I didn't take Troy's comment as an insult to Pepe's wife. I took it to be an insult of that arsehole Pepe, who's a major big league idiot. OK? Hope I haven't insulted Pepe's wife for marrying such a big time arsehole.

    5. Only the solar wind? Only...

      Anyway, it is obvious that I cannot get my point across to you. You're too invested in your position to give any ground or seek any sort of consensus.
      That and, as you say, I do not write in the shorthand you're used to (ie illiterate).
      My take: The science is incomplete, and rushing to any sort of conclusions (ie ONLY gasses) could lead to disaster.
      Geo-engineering is hubris.
      Playing with Earth's climate like a lab experiment is hubris.
      Filling our atmosphere with toxins to support 'industry' while pronouncing there is no harm in it is also hubris.
      And we haven't even hit on the Oceans properly.

      What I seek is HONEST (ie non political) science and a sane/balanced approach that takes ALL factors into account with an emphasis on human life, not some utopian elitist dream.

      If anything is 'speculative', it is an unknown. To get a real picture we need to KNOW, not wave hands.
      I do not like what the control freaks propose on EITHER side of this debate.

      Life on Earth will continue no matter what we do. Whether you want to attribute that to adaptation or God's will, no matter. Same thing in my book.
      It is the HUMAN life I am concerned with primarily.
      I do not want millions of people to die. Not for industry, and not for 'science'.

      As for the Troy stuff, if either party gave a hoot they would have chimed in. No point in us going on and on about it. We can find better things to argue about, I am sure.
      I was just calling him out for going too far. The guy just called me (and military forces, by proxy) 'cannon fodder' on another post. I don't care about that one way or the other. He's not my son or brother, and it is not my business or responsibility to correct him on that. But, we ALL use this forum to converse and when I think someone has gone too far I will let that be known.
      Troy's an arrogant idiot. I actually pity the guy, more than anything else.
      But I do think a little 'direction' from his fellow travellers is in order. He sheds a poor light on the very subjects and positions he is supposedly supporting.
      As for you calling Pépé an arsehole, I think that could be easily taken to be calling his wife saintly for putting up with him.
      We could probably lump our own wives in there too.
      They could well, for all we know, all get along great as we rip each others ideas to bits daily.

    6. CrusadeRex,

      Agreed. Life on Earth will continue, regardless of what we do. There's bacteria in rocks in the Earth's crust to a depth of several kilometres that we couldn't even touch.

      It's human life that I'm concerned about. The Catholic Church has an official position on AGW. It's happening. Pope Benedikt XVI prayed in 2011 that the Durban conference would come to a global agreement on action to deal with AGW, since it's the poor in poor countries who will be most affected, lacking the resources to adapt.

      And anyway, the military is 'cannon fodder', or at least our glorious leaders treat it so. Starting an illegal war in Iraq in 2003 based on lies, using a grossly inadequate plan for the occupation that was no better than no plan, and then not spending enough on rehabilitation when damaged (physically or psychologically) soldiers return home. And that applies in Australia too. And for Afghanistan too.

      The solar wind has nothing to do with climate. If you think so, then show the evidence. The Earth's magnetic field stops it reaching the atmosphere. The Earth's magnetic field has always been present. The poles migrate. The strength of the field fluctuates (currently it's stronger than average, albeit weakening). And occasionally, it 'flips' with the north magnetic pole becoming the south, and vice versa. Doesn't mean that the magnetic field disappears - it just means that it becomes chaotic with the magnetic poles shifting rapidly and unpredictably.

      And even if the current weakening is causing warming by producing more cirrus clouds, it's still highly speculative. Not worth mentioning as a major factor in climate so as to deride me for not mentioning it.

      We understand how greenhouse gases work. We are already experimenting on the climate, by pumping 9 billion tonnes of carbon in the form of CO2 into the atmosphere each year by burning fossil fuels and land clearing.

      I'm not a fan of geoengineering, although we might be forced into it. Injecting 5 million tonnes of sulphur each year into the upper atmosphere would reduce solar input by 2% (in comparison, burning coal releases 50 million tonnes of sulphur per year into the lower atmosphere, so it wouldn't cause much added harm, and could be stopped easily if it did). About what would be necessary.