Sold and swallowed by every hysterical greeny on the planet.

Pretty hard to erase history.

log man said..
Well that settles it then........it's a huge fraud

No of course climate change is real.

But if I asserted that graph was wrong a couple of months ago you've have laughed at me and labeled me all kinds of stuff.
See its not s simple as blindly following an ideology.

And you still poke fun at those who are even just moderately slightly to the "other side" than you

I noticed last month it was really cold,
This month has been a lot warmer,
climate has changed

But yes, climate change is real. Time to stop digging big holes in the ground,look to alternatives and stop farting.

When the pollies and the activist start to address the real problem, population growth, then I will sit up and listen.

But for now they are still flying around to meetings and talking about population doubling in the next 50 years as though that's fine, and then buying beach front property.

Someone is telling lies I think.

97 percent of scientists agree but Fred Nurk on seabreeze disagrees!!!

Woh boys heavy weather has a slight creep out of its box here ...

log man said..
97 percent of scientists agree but Fred Nurk on seabreeze disagrees!!!

No, they don't. Like you, Cook misrepresented the data to drive the narrative.

I thought you were all about the cold hard science?

Kamikuza said..

log man said..
97 percent of scientists agree but Fred Nurk on seabreeze disagrees!!!

No, they don't. Like you, Cook misrepresented the data to drive the narrative.

I thought you were all about the cold hard science?

So what is the "exact" figure? 95%? 90%?
The people who like to claim that there is significant dissent also like to claim that the electorate has given their side an overwhelming mandate to do whatever it likes if they manage to win an election 52 to 48.

log man said..

Kamikuza said..

log man said..
97 percent of scientists agree but Fred Nurk on seabreeze disagrees!!!

No, they don't. Like you, Cook misrepresented the data to drive the narrative.

I thought you were all about the cold hard science?

What did he do?

You gotta lay off the pipe, this has been gone through just recently.

I like reading the comments, they are comical
here is one of the special comments

"The climate change hoax is pushed only by haters of God. Later when they are enjoying their special place God prepared for them, Christians will be treated to a new, rebuilt world without the haters in it.
from someone#"

Why does China need to buy up parts of Australian agricultural land to feed themselves?

Because it's cheaper and more politically expedient than a military invasion.

Kamikuza said..

Why does China need to buy up parts of Australian agricultural land to feed themselves?

Because it's cheaper and more politically expedient than a military invasion.

And over population exceeding what food they can produce

log man said..
99.4 is the latest........it's gone up!!!

Oh cool. I'll just take your word for it. That's how science works after all and we all know how much the left loves science

OK, this a is a dangerous area to comment on and I generally don't.
But in a world where simply suggesting that the climate change models might be over-skinning the cat will get you sacked from your university and the hope of getting funding for a contrarian paper let alone published in a peer reviewed journal when all the reviewers are relying on grants that make it necessary to come up with headline worthy disaster outcomes is zilch, maybe a review of published papers isn't the way to find out what most scientists actually think.

You could just ask them (probably preferably anomalously; but I don't know).
The guy who did ( A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members) came up with 52%
journals.ametsoc.org/action/cookieAbsent