Comments by "" (@DanielSMatthews) on "Australia’s energy policy creates ‘economic pain’ for ‘no environmental gain’" video.

The levels of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere are recorded in the Keeling Curve dataset and that dataset did not show a proportional "signal" from when the covid lockdowns dropped human economic activity by 10% therefore there is no provable correlation between human activity and the rate of CO2 rise in the atmosphere, in fact there is some pretty fundamental physics/chemistry that shows that the warming of the oceans is driving the CO2 rise and not the other way around. i.e. There is no scientifically provable benefit at all given Australia's total CO2 output is 1/10th the size of the "signal" that could not be detected. This is what one can conclude from examining just the datasets that the UN uses and considers to be valid, their data does not support the hysterical climate alarmism.
12
@Prognosis__ "James Morrow" is irrelevant, its existence is just an brief and unsightly smear of the dataflow of the internet, and when it is gone it will not be remembered.
3
@grannyannie2948 So would I.
3
@rattusfinkus Actually that is completely imaginary, we would see convective cells in far higher numbers and intensities before the ocean got warm enough to tip the system, and we don't see that, in fact even cyclone numbers and intensities are average to lower, according to the actual data. This is your problem, you never actually test your hypothesis against current data.
2
@rattusfinkus Do as I say or foff. I can give you any number of references about anything, but if they are not relevant to the topic of discussion (see original comment) then they are just a pathetic attempt to set up a distraction to avoid dealing with what has been pointed out. What is it that I did point out? I am not asking you if you agree, just that you can demonstrate a reasonable level of comprehension of what the actual issue raised is. If you can't even do that then expect to be treated with the contempt that you deserve. Let me be clear I am not interested in your referenced papers about simulations of future events because it is mathematically impossible to predict the future state of such complex systems, in fact due to the nature of mathematics such questions are literally uncomputable. Even the paper you mentioned indirectly admits this, then proceeds to ignore that fact, so it is useless crystal ball gazing and of very little value. Now contrast that to what I have pointed out, if you have worked out what my OP was actually about yet?
2
@rattusfinkus Stop trying to diverge the dialogue off toward some strawman argument you have prepared (which I will destroy anyway Mr time waster), deal with the original points I made, show that you understand them, then make some point of your own to add to that or correct some logical or factual error that you have detected, otherwise foff.
2
@rattusfinkus No that is not the answer. The UN declared a specific slowdown magnitude from one of the datasets they "trust" but one of their other datasets does not have a correlation. The absolute size is completely irrelevant. Try again, but first go and look up what the word "proportional" means.
2
@rattusfinkus Your question is not at all pertinent to my observations, in fact it demonstrates that you do not understand the significance of what I have pointed out at all.
2
@rattusfinkus My mind is made up and was communicated perfectly using logic and referencing verifiable facts, it is your comprehension that is senile. I have even told you what methodology you can use to verify what I have observed. Go and do that then tell me where the error is.
2
If all of the people in the world, who thought this whole climate thing was a scam, gathered in one place they would make a very large and powerful nation.
2
Normally I am very dismissive of people's fears of AI making them redundant, then I come across a clown like you and think, hmmm perhaps in your case an AI would have no trouble at all making you redundant.
1
@Prognosis__ I am a climatologist, because I have used the relevant maths on the relevant data, just as anyone else can. Science is a method, not a social status. That idiot you are arguing with is mentally ill and has a very tenuous grip on reality, so you are wasting your time as they don't listen to reason anyway, they can't even recognise it.
1
@rattusfinkus I know very well what they are and that they are irrelevant, my point is about the practice of science and the fact that the data does not support the old hypothesis regardless of what conclusion you would draw from it about tipping points or any other process. i.e. You don't even get that far in the chain of thought because the linked reasoning is broken and you can't reach your own previous conclusion, or even get near it.
1
@rattusfinkus See my original comment, idiot.
1
@rattusfinkus Did I, or are you an idiot with a comprehension problem?
1
@rattusfinkus The hint is in where they are warming, so what would tip the north pole such that it periodically got more insolation? I note that you and other shitforbrainscretins have avoided what I pointed out in the OP completely and are desperately trying to diverge the dialogue toward straw man arguments, but you just don't have the cognitive faculties to pull that off. 😆
1
@rattusfinkus Take your time series data and do a wavelet analysis, that will extract out the periodic elements, the residual is the trend that you are trying to prove exists, and therefore its magnitude suggests its significance. Go and do that then get back to me with the actual results of performing that analysis on current data. Otherwise you are just a useless propagandist and religious zealot who is so far from understanding and practicing science that you are a complete joke.
1
@rattusfinkus You are so stupid that you can't even understand my original point at all yet you try and argue with me about it, try again and this time don't make such a fool of yourself. Otherwise why are you even communicating with me when you clearly don't understand at all what I have written? Seriously, go back and read what I have pointed out, then write something that demonstrates that you have comprehended it.
1
@rattusfinkus It is not pertinent to my original observations, it is just your idiotic strawman argument that I have already mentioned. Go back and read the original comment, then try and address the problem I am pointing out, or explain why it isn't a problem. I did actually give you a big hint as to one know periodic influence on ocean temperatures, and told you how to separate the periodic variables from the data to find a trend (if it exists at all), which again you have failed to do because you are an innumerate fool with no capability to practice science at any useful level. Stop wasting my time.
1
@rattusfinkus Now you are gibbering. I am not assuming a correlation, others have claimed there is one, but it can't be found. IDIOT
1
Bowen is either insane or a pathological liar. The levels of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere are recorded in the Keeling Curve dataset and that dataset did not show a proportional "signal" from when the covid lockdowns dropped human economic activity by 10% therefore there is no provable correlation between human activity and the rate of CO2 rise in the atmosphere, in fact there is some pretty fundamental physics/chemistry that shows that the warming of the oceans is driving the CO2 rise and not the other way around. i.e. There is no scientifically provable benefit at all given Australia's total CO2 output is 1/10th the size of the "signal" that could not be detected. This is what one can conclude from examining just the datasets that the UN uses and considers to be valid, their data does not support the hysterical climate alarmism.
1