Not an all time low but not a bad price to get you through the current heatwave.
Ensure you tick the $23 coupon voucher.
CamelCamelCamel.
Not bad price
Poor drop
Seriously there's so much better. Try tingletop, meggsy, there's another one I can't think of right now… Brookvale is rough. People need to move on.
Mind you I think the same of bundy and the masses love their swill
I have a customer who has given me a bottle of master distillers Bundy every year for Xmas for years now. I don’t mind it.
I'm yet to see either of those at my bottlo (Newcastle)
This is my favourite but also had to get it delivered
https://www.danmurphys.com.au/product/DM_805841/royal-jamaic…
Spiciest ginger out there by far.
Picked one up for triple j weekend, cheers mate
This is why I have my username
@kiriakoz: Wow.
Incase the downvotes don't make it clear, the problem here is the commentor who jumps in to a thread to mock people.
That person is you.
No coupon showing
There should be a tick box, which states apply $23 coupon.
Nah, not showing anymore. Still showing your end?
still showing for me, 6%ers of these are much tastier imo
Still works
Any luck finding the discount coupon yet?
Yep coupon works thanks op
Thanks Op
No coupon showing
Only for prime members, had to sign up to see the coupon.
The price of booze is getting insane. I guess these are hit with the alcopop tax?
Man, F our government.
It's always been this expensive, this is actually suprisingly cheap
Not before 2009, pre-mix drinks were actually taxed less than spirits.
I’m not happy with it but I guess It did reduce binge drinking in younger people. Not sure how much though, you’ll never stop it completely.
I imagine they moved to wine or plain spirits, so, likely a worse outcome.
@WhyAmICommenting: That’s what I thought and I remember looking it up at the time. Beer/wine/spirits sales went up, but overall drinking went down slightly.
These never existed before 2009,
Govt take is around $19/case. Barely scratches the surface of the costs associated with alcohol misuse and associated health costs.
Consumers are their own worst enemies. Essentially, two things control retail pricing - consumer resistance (don't buy it if you think its cost is ott), and competition. The craft beer/drinks segment has a consumer 'wank' tax imo. Makers know enough will pay a premium so they have no incentive to offer better prices.
Damn alcohol is expensive I'm just glad I'm addicted to sugary soft drinks and not booze…
Less than 20% of the estimated cost of alcohol "abuse" to Australian society. Reality bites.
This is what happens when there is only one drug supplier in town.
These are delicious
rip off
the current heatwave.
Had a look at the BOM site for weather around the nation today, Melbourne lol.
Melbourne is experiencing global cooling for the past several years
Oh man that article is the worst piece of junk news I've read in a while…
'might have', 'may be', 'could potentially'… This is the climate cult in a nutshell. It really is a new religion…
And the fact you tried to attribute something that happened in 2022 to observable events prior to 2022 shows how much you've bought into the scam.
Oh man that article is the worst piece of junk news I've read in a while…
I take it you don't read your own comments before posting then? Deja vu all over again.
Ego and ignorance are invariably a bad combination, made worse when someone lets their ideology blind them to knowledge and apparently make them afraid of reading. If you came out of your self-induced knowledge embargo you too would (might) learn what high school kiddies know - that most branches of science rarely deal in the simplistic absolutes your brain can manage. Doubt and probabilty are critical components of science in general. Sure, statistical confidence levels can be a difficult concept for some, but most who got past Year 10 would be able to work out why climate science isn't the simple black and white discipline you crave so badly.
On Melb temps - knock yourself out (again): http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statement_archives.sht… For homework, see if you can work out whether there's a local weather relationship between rainfall and temperature, and research what climate science says about warming and precipitation. 150 words on the differences bewteen weather and climate should precede your analysis.
By the way when's your paper on albedo and the variable effects of water vapour on global warming due out? Do let us know the time and venue, I'm always up for a good dose of comedy, even if it's unintended.
@1st-Amendment: I'm impressed. A big word for someone yet to grasp a simple tenet of science, but to show you know what it means how about you point out these "non-sequiturs" and explain why you think they are what you claim.
It's interesting - and sadly instructive - how a small cohort (usually of a particular demographic) with no particular - or worthwhile - knowledge, experience or expertise laughably claims to know more than the combined wisdom of tens of thousands of appropriately qualified and experienced scientists. An equal measure of misplaced arrogance and ignorance perhaps? If only the stockmarket was as predictable.
the combined wisdom of tens of thousands of appropriately qualified and experienced scientists.
The classic argument from authority fallacy…
For someone who claims to be on the side of science, you are conspicuously devoid of any. This supports my hypothesis that this a cult. Chanting the same old slogans over and over is not science, it's religion…
@1st-Amendment: Authority fallacy? Get that from your Telegram feed did you? In the context of this "discussion" (I add that because as most readers of your tosh already know, you have a habit of irrelevant and equivocal comments - equivocation being just another trait of the demographic), a two minute contemplation of history and human advances will give the lie to that invented juvenile concept. A word of warning though - you'll have to open up that finely honed steel trap of yours to make any sort of progress. Your history here suggests that's probably a longshot but occasionally we read about people emerging from the rabbit hole, so hope springs eternal.
Your latest statement simply reinforces what we already know about your demographic. I've dealt with it above, but it's worth repeating - ignorance and gobsmacking arrogance. Another trait of that demographic is accusing their targets of the very things they indulge in. Sloganism, in this case. You really don't have even secondary school understanding of how science works do you?
Speaking of cults. How did you become a victim? I'm familiar with the traits - they're well documented. I'm vaguely interested in the journey.
@1st-Amendment: Science is part of everyday life - even yours. That you know nothing about it, let alone why it's critical is simply a measure of how far down that cult rabbit hole you've gone. There is a simple solution. Spend the same anmount of time on educating yourself as you do on your navel fluff analysis and regurgitation of juvenile inanities. It will take a while - quite a while if your Ozb oosts are any indication.
Still struggling with the imaginary non-sequiturs are you?
@1st-Amendment: So I'll take that as confirmation that you couldn't find any non-sequiturs because: a) there were none, and b) you used a term you have no concept of, yet again.
When you say actual science, I presume you mean the stuff your callow and credulous cult-mates reject and denigrate because of their ilness?
When you say actual science
Feel free to post some, any time you are ready…
One day you might learn that your opinion is not data… If you are lucky…
@1st-Amendment: What's your address? I can send you a plastic bottle so you can contemplate science to your heart's content. Alternatively you could use it for your ever mounting navel fluff collection. The bottle is clean and "empty" (not really, as you know because science told you either directly or indirectly), so no need to worry that steel trap of yours about potential pathogens - something else experts told you (well, us) about.
What is my opinion? That your demographic is astonishingly ignorant and arrogant? Plenty of evidence for that - including many of your posts - just as there is for anthropogenic climate change, covid, vaccines and pretty much everything your cult tries to disparage. That "authority" you struggle with has been well earned over centuries of human endeavour as most reasonable adults understand and accept. Not perfect, but no adult capable of rational thought and with modeate cognitive abilities expects so.
The great irony is that even as you and your cult-mates rail about topics you know next to nothing about, every day each and every one of you avails yourself of and relies on the products, knowledge, advice, experience, expertise and "authority" of those you attempt to disparage.
We know from medical "authority" that sociopathy is often a manifestation of an impaired or deficient brain. That may in part also explain related behaviours, but from my limited and purely amateur observations, opinionated ignorance is often simply an ideological choice. Some things are inherited or acquired via upbringing and opportunity (lack of), but that doesn't explain how many end up down the rabbit hole of irrationality and self-inflicted ignorance.
@Igaf: So still no actual science or logic presented…
Imagine what level you have to be to think that a rant passes for an argument of any kind.
This is getting embarrassing for you now, but this is pretty much how Dunning Kruger plays out…
@1st-Amendment: I've offered to post you some basic science directly. Not sure why you didn't take the offer up. To make it more interesting I could always remove some of the air so your sample bottle has slightly different science to contemplate. I've also explained that science is all around you, some of it comprehensible to even the dullest wit. All of it is easily accessible, especially for someone as eager to learn as yourself.
You have the same access to myriad credible online science resources as everyone on this website does presumably? Or do you have a child lock specifically dedicated to blocking science websites? Spoonfeeding stopped before kindy for most and the learning version usually peters out in junior high school. Was that not your experience?
There are many reasons why people don't want to learn and shun the nowledge and expertise of others. Feel free to share yours if you think it will help to talk about it. My guess is that primarlity it's because your online persona thinks it can get away with attacking "authority" despite having a complete lack of credibility and credentials yourself. Newsflash - it doesn't work. Even the simple concept that you live in a society which not only accepts the "authority" you struggle to comprehend but actually survives on it appears beyond you. Or is it?
It's interesting that you did eventually manage to learn about the D-K Effect, albeit because it's regularly attributed to members of your cult, with good reason. The irony in your embrace of that construct is quite amusing given the fact that it was developed by the "authority" you reject. Were you cherry picking? In part yes, but that was accompanied by a whopping dose of lack of self-awareness. Classic cognitive dissonance.
@Igaf: So much effort to avoid supporting your claims with any actual evidence…
Keep telling yourself you are right, that is how sCiEnCe works right?
🤣
@1st-Amendment: Claims of what? The article I linked was self explanatory, even for (most) rw dribblers. As the vast majority of adults understand, it's simplification of a miniscule part of climate science, which as you (cough) know is based on data, analysis and expertise you apparently can't concieve let alone comprehend. Deja vu but if you had ANY interest in ever so slightly mitigating your nescience you could actually look for more direct and complex analyses. What's stopping you other than your ego and blind adherence to the cult of opinionated ignorance?
@mlburnian: Alan Jones and Sky News is where you get told what your opinions are is it Tony? No surpises there. That topic was dealt with long ago.
I'll sum up for you so it doesn't stress those overworked neurons of yours.
Flannery's comments were taken out of context.
Flannery's not a climate scientist.
Flannery's understanding of what climate science models were "predicting" was simply wrong.
He should have known better - something Alan Jones is probably thinking about his own predicament right now, and something you should take on board judging by your own comment above.
Apparently you missed the mountains of scientific data, analysis, discussion, debate, modelling, review, 'triple' checking, and public reporting which totally invalidates your implied opinion. Why is it that your kind constantly equivocate and insinuate? Rhetorical question.
I'm always open to new ideas so how about you tell us what is causing global warming and whether greenhouse gas is a major contributor. I'll check back in a few months after you've consulted Sky News and psedo-science denier websites.
Flannery's not a climate scientist.
Flannery's understanding of what climate science models were "predicting" was simply wrong.
We know. We said this 15 years ago. I'm glad you finally caught up…
@1st-Amendment: Who's the "we" sunshine? I didn't need to "catch up" I was already well-enough read and informed to know what to expect from rw climate deniers. There's an excellent rebuttal of Flannery's detractors around if you're interested and can work out how to use the internet. Good news is that if you find it (1000/1 and blowing fast) you can 'kill two birds with one stone' - learn from someone informed AND see what an ACTUAL opinion piece is. Among other things it talks about context and meaning - things your rw opinion setters go to great lengths to ignore because they understand the mental acuities of the demographic they're appealing to.
As most who followed the denier years of Australian govt would know, "your" cult tried unsuccessfully to insinuate that the highly respected and awarded Prof Flannery's musings on the possible effects of global warming - which were his own interpretation of what might occur in a particular secenario - somehow invalidated all climate science and modelling. Most of the tosh I read from the usual rw suspects and co-opted scientists with no credentials or credibility in climate science (you can read about some of them here (there's plenty more if you bother to look), were oblivious to the fact that climate science had already produced a range of models using varying temperature increase parameters which indicated a HUGE range of possiblities and probabilities (with associated confidence levels) - or as the great unwashed might know it, best and worse case scenarios. Some may have known but they didn't want their credulous and ignorant listeners/readers to know. As YOU know /s, these models were never presented as FACT or PREDICTION, yet your puppeteers made you believe that was the case, knowing that you'd never bother to educate yourselves on the topic.
Did I ever mention that opinionated ignorance is (usually) a self-inflicted illness? It's worth repeating if I did.
I'll give you the same challenge as I did to your cultmate above:
I'm always open to new ideas so how about you tell us what is causing global warming and whether greenhouse gas is a major contributor.
Who's the "we" sunshine?
You and me. Can you not read?
We both agree that like every other Climate priest Gore, Thunberg etc Flannery is not a climate scientist and his bold claims were flat out wrong.
His appointment as head of the 'Climate Commission' just highlights the absurdity of this ideology.
Some of us just took longer to work this out.
The continuous ranting you display only shows your inability to separate emotion from rational discussion. This is sign of immaturity. You really should work on that.
I'm always open to new ideas so how about you tell us what is causing global warming
Well you are learning.. Albeit slowly.
So let me help you out here again. When I did my Physics degree, the very first you must do is define what it is precisely you are asking. What do you mean by 'global warming'?
'Global warming'' isn't very precise nor scientific language. If you want to talk science you going to have to learn the basics first.
What specifically and precisely do you mean? That Satellite data has shown some years since 1980 to be warmer than others? And others are cooler?
What is the benchmark here?
Who decides what is normal on a planet that has billions of years of historical change?
Provide some more detail and I will attempt to answer your questions.
Also with nothing, the second error you are making is that assuming that if no other explanation exists for any observed phenomena then yours is by default the correct one. This is known as the god of gaps fallacy. This is not how science works, it is how religion works.
But well done on asking questions. If you can learn to control the emotional ranting you might actually learn something here.
@1st-Amendment: Part 1
You and me. Can you not read?
We both agree that like every other Climate priest Gore, Thunberg etc Flannery is not a climate scientist and his bold claims were flat out wrong.
I can read and comprehend at the same time, you should try it some time.
So you’re now claiming to speak for me as well as yourself, despite taking another Ozbargainer to task for the very same thing only a short time ago? Surely not.
Don’t delude yourself even further sunshine, based on your comments on this website I can assure you that on many things - including anthropogenic climate change (note I didn’t say climate science, because you haven’t even got to first base on that topic) - my views and yours are poles apart.
Those agitators for action you mention aren't everyone's cup of tea - especially Greta Thunberg whose youth and intellect understandably challenges many of your cohort - but they know more about climate change and its threats than you can even contemplate (I'm assuming you'll start that journey at some point). They also have credibility and respect you can only dream of. That they regularly trigger your demographic is a bonus.
His [Dr Flannery] appointment as head of the 'Climate Commission' just highlights the absurdity of this ideology.
So your premise is that all climate science is “absurd” and an “ideology” because a highly acclaimed and respected scientist who was an Australian of the Year was chosen to head a body to implement and advance government climate policy? Yet another childish inanity (highlighted so you don’t need to ask again). It seems your ignorance of how and why heads of commissions , advisory boards etc are chosen is commensurate with your knowledge of climate science, approaching zero. Lack of life experience and knowledge of how the world works is one explanation, but I think your ideologically-driven inability to process basic information is also at play.
When I did my Physics degree, the very first you must do is define what it is precisely you are asking. What do you mean by 'global warming'? Global warming'' isn't very precise nor scientific language. If you want to talk science you going to have to learn the basics first. What specifically and precisely do you mean?
It’s peripheral but goes to your incredibly stupid and unknowing comment about "authority fallacy" so worth a passing comment. When you did your Physics degree you not only accepted “authority” clearly well beyond your own knowledge, capability, and experience but you also accepted the credibility the award from a teaching authority gave you. I’m sure if you think about it long enough you’ll work out the disconnect between your beliefs and what you practice/accept in real life.
But back to your statement and question about definitions. The ignorance and sheer arrogance is breathtaking. Do you really think the thousands of highly qualified scientists engaged in climate related work for decades don’t understand basic scientific requirements? That they didn’t think of how they’d define global warming and what evidence would be required? Any ideas on why ‘global warming’ was eventually changed to ‘climate change’? No? Look it up sunshine.
As you should know climate science defined global warming many decades ago. The concept isn’t difficult to understand, as primary school students across the globe can attest, even if they, like you, don't know about the nuance involved or how warming is measured. I could summarise it in a sentence (in fact I did but thanks to Ozbargain's ancient system it died before I could publish it and I've now reconsidered how much mollycoddling you deserve), but I’m not your wet nurse and you clearly need to learn how to research things for yourself. I’ll give you some clues - the definition involves time, averages, temperature measured in ways and with techologies you’re unfamiliar with, in places your ideologically-bound intellect apparently can’t conceive.
While you’re looking for your definition, find out how surface temperatures are measured and take a few minutes to look at global heat maps and see if you can understand what they show. You might come across a range of temperature related labels which appear regularly in scientific papers and charts, such as NASA GISS, HadCRUT, NOAA, RS, NCEP and ERA. Don’t be scared, they won’t bite. Find out what they are and how they're used in climate science. You will also come across something called the “Temperature Anomaly”. It’s probably not what you think given your propensity for cherry picking (a common failure by deniers and even some respected skeptics), which is a nice segway to the next part of my response which will follow soon.
Claims of what?
Oh you finally worked out how a rational discussion works. Well done, I'm so proud of you.
The article I linked was self explanatory
Well that didn't last long…
Firstly the 'article' you posted is a media opinion piece. Now if only we could get you to work out the difference between that and actual science we might be able to get you free of the cult…
The rest of you post just regressed back to the same old emotional verbal diarrhea.
For someone who claims to be on the side on science why are you repeatedly unable to demonstrate any?
@1st-Amendment: I could be wrong (confidence level 0-5%) but based on your comments on this website (a reasonable sample size) I think it's not unfair to say that what you know about adult discussion could be written in 50 pt comic sans on the back of a postage stamp. Or maybe you do understand adult discussion but just haven't graduated to successful implementation at this point. Baby steps….
The article I linked was self explanatory
Well that didn't last long…
Apologies, I forgot about your particular problem. What I should have written was The article I linked was self explanatory to people of at least moderate intelligence and/or those who aren't blinded by a particular ideology. Does that clarify what I meant wrt "self explanatory" or would you like to seek a second opinion from say your Telegram cult buddies?
the 'article' you posted is a media opinion piece
When you graduate primary you might possibly learn the difference between a media report briefly summarising preliminary scientific work (something which happens regularly on websites you obviously don't access) and an opinion piece. Most on this site appear to have managed, what's holding you back, apart from the obvious? Fear of learning, or having another of your crutches removed?
For someone who claims to be on the side on science why are you repeatedly unable to demonstrate any?
Did you ask AI to respond or is this your own work? Deja vu all over again.
Send me your address and I'll send you some "science". Hang on, iirc that offer was made twice previously when your juvenile "request" was first made and then repeated. As you know, 'science' is a huge and varied field so perhaps you should be more specific about that word and what you mean by "demonstrate". Did you want to see some climate experts in action or would an image of receding glaciers and sea ice - or perhaps some global heat maps - suffice or were you thinking more along the lines of the activities at Questacon. No science week where you live?
Here's a really, reeally, reeeally simple question you should be able to answer: Why do you repeatedly ask an anonymous person (or maybe not) on a deals website to "demonstrate" science? Have you not noticed that this is an anonymous deals website populated with a huge range people (and/or bots) of highly variable knowledge and life experience (and likely an atypical demographic)? In high school did you not learn how to find reputable sources of information like 99% of the schooled population did? Have you not learnt to be wary of sources with no verifiable claims to expertise? Or is it as simple as that steel trap of yours leading you to believe that because I appear know more about "science" than you (a very low bar admittedly), therefore I am/was/must be a "science" oracle? Your premise being that if an anonymous person on a deals website can't "demonstrate science" to your satisfaction, therefore all "science" is a "cult".
Why do you repeatedly ask an anonymous person (or maybe not) on a deals website to "demonstrate" science?
You claimed to be on the side of sCiEnCe, and the very basic foundation of everyone is the burden of proof.
It's very clear that you haven't the foggiest idea on what that means or how actual science works, and like most climate nuts you've found a new religion by reading copious amounts of media versions of sCiEnCe then claim to have all the authority but never any of the rigour.
Here's some real science to give you an idea:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-023-03518-z
You claimed to be on the side of sCiEnCe, and the very basic foundation of everyone is the burden of proof.
The grammar is rubbish but I get your meaning, which is the bottom line for communication so…..
Therefore…? Your premise is that I need to "demonstrate science" or "prove" that the mountains of knowledge, expertise, reports, models etc is credible because I argue that your dismissal of climate science - and by implication (notice how you do that in almost every post yet?) the credibility and credentials of its experts - is based on your gross self-inflicted ignorance and nothing else? I'm not sure where you got your education but it has a lot to answer for. That's kiddie stuff, especially from someone who implies (again) that he's a master of argument.
Good job though. You've produced an obvious, classic non-sequitur without knowing it. If you study it long enough and keep re-reading the definition of a non-sequitur I'm sure you'll eventually work out why. Since you don't know what a non-sequitur is I guess you can be excused, but anyone who graduated primary school should also be able to see the complete logic failure of your "answer".
Now for the good news, as brief as it is. You're right (take a bow) in implying that there is/should be an unbreakable bond between authority and rigour. HOWEVER….your opinion that there is "never any rigour" is as ignorant a statement as I've read from any denier in nigh on two decades. Again, I need to lower my expectations in your case because the vast majority deniers I've read or crossed paths with have far more knowledge and acumen than you.
So, onto RIGOUR and TRANSPARENCY.
Since you know sfa about how science works I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you'd also know nothing about about scientific rigour but surely even you have encountered at least passing reference to how scientific principles and knowledge are developed and accepted. Clearly not, or perhaps you simply didn't understand what was being said.
I'll help and break things down for you.
Fundamentally, science is about testing and applying - testing knowledge, testing theories, testing assumptions, testing evidence. It works by (among other things) applying knowledge and expertise, hypothesising, gathering data, analysing, experimenting, modelling, implementing, rigorously recording and documenting and testing, re-testing, publishing, following existing stanadards, and rigorously reviewing (not always perfectly, as some of the current plethora of junk papers from certain parts of the globe, published on what are fast becoming faux-science websites, shows).
There's far more involved of course - including qualifications, training, reputation, acknowledged expertise in the field, direct experience and knowledge, supervision and oversight of staff and processes, and adherence to (and sometimes departure from) agreed standards. Sure, YOU (and I) dont get to be part of those review or agreement processes but that's no reason to assume they don't exist, aren't being followed, or are simply junk. Only the most arrogant, ignorant, ideologically blind and/or (to put it bluntly) stupid people would suupport that notion.
New and improved standards are also subjected to rigour that would apparently blow your tiny mind. Here's just one example, I'm sure you're right up to speed on it. Iirc it mentions or alludes to lab/experiment reproduceability - yet another critical part of the scientific rigour you know nothing about.
As you know, experts and relatively "new" scientists routinely debate and discuss data, hypotheses and conclusions. Experts often differ on matters of significance of data/resuts, and even on the accuracy/relevancy of data. Papers arguing various points of view on a specific topic (with the usual "proofs") aren't rare. Peer review and debate is a critical part of scientific advancement but it's not the only way rigour is applied (cue experimentation).
The piece de resistance (add your own grave and acute) of scientific authority is ultimately (lightbulb moment coming up for you, you might want to sit down) - scientific consensus/acceptance. And as you should know there is global but not universal consensus about anthropogenic climate change. But as ever don't take my word for it, do your own research, preferably with both eyes AND your MIND OPEN.
TL:DR? The story of your life?
snip another long winded emotional rant to deflect from production any actual evidence…
The lady doth protest much
I argue that your dismissal of climate science.
Lol, is that the false assumption you've proceeded on this whole time?
Imagine being that clueless.
Imagine thinking that the media is the source of scientific output lol…
Have you ever read an actual science paper ever in your life? Or is the ABC and The Guardian all you need to be convinced lol?
Lol, is that the false assumption you've proceeded on this whole time?
Imagine being that clueless.
Imagine thinking that the media is the source of scientific output lol…
You were looking in the mirror as you typed that persumably. Thanks for the quotes, they'll come in handy when I get round to responding to your incredible - even for you - ignorance and obtuseness.
another long winded emotional rant to deflect from production any actual evidence.
Evidence of what? That rigour and transparency exists in and underpins science despite your ignorant opinion to the contrary? Most people learnt in the first few years of their lives that putting their hands over their eyes didn't make things disappear. In the adult world, nor does blind ideology or belief. There's plenty of evidence in your comments here that you're scientifically illiterate, and vastly more "actual evidence" that humans are major contributors to current global warming. Your denial of its existence because you haven't bothered to find, read, and absorb it is the stuff of toddlers and ideological fools.
Have you ever read an actual science paper ever in your life? Or is the ABC and The Guardian all you need to be convinced lol?
What's "an actual science paper"? Do you mean peer reviewed research published in reputable publications and regarded by experts in the field as credible? The same material YOU can't find on climate science? The reports which have been summarised by teams of international experts in mutliple IPCC Reports so that the public could understand it ?
I've read more legitimate papers than you've had hot dinners as the saying goes, although I'll freely admit that a lot of the complex science is well beyond my comprehension level - as it often is even for scientists who don't specialise in the particular topic being discussed. I've also read IPCC Summary Reports, numerous science blogs where scientists debate climate specifics, and the discussions on a well known US climate skeptic's website. I've also read hundreds of rebuttals of pseudo-science babble by scientists concerned with the promulgation of misinformation. Huge props to those people because they usually do their "reviews" in their own time and don't hide behind pseudonyms.
The ABC has some excellent shows on radio and on TV where science is reported for general consumption. You'd erroneously label them opinion pieces when the reality in the adult world is that most are summaries of scientific endeavour, highly simplified for the general public's consumption. Most interested adults have no problems in understanding the limitations to media shows and reports on science. The ABC's website on the other hand is a national embarrassment imo. They have a hugely diverse role and limited resources so have to prioritise. You on the other hand….
Evidence of what?
Your claims. Why can you never ever produce any evidence to support any of them?
There's plenty of evidence
Yet you repeatedly fail to produce any…
and vastly more "actual evidence"
Which you can't produce…
I've read more legitimate papers
So post one… just one will be a good start. Why is this so difficult for you to do? What are you hiding from?
although I'll freely admit that a lot of the complex science is well beyond my comprehension level -
It's not actual that complex at all. All you need to do is be willing to interrogate some of the information you are being fed to see if it matches real world observations. If it doesn't then it is not reliable.
when the reality in the adult world is that most are summaries of scientific endeavour
This tells us all we need to know. You spend all day reading biased media stories and think that this passes for 'science'.
Thanks for proving my point.
There's plenty of evidence
Yet you repeatedly fail to produce any…and vastly more "actual evidence"
Which you can't produce…
Dunning-Kruger personified right there. I've seen your vacuous and puerile "argument" style enough to know that its sole aim is to wear others down. When you have no argument, and no acumen, I'm not surprised that's your modus operandi. I understand that you have the comprehension and nous of a kindy kid, but it's apparent that's also accompanied by a puerile refusal to educate yourself. Plenty has already been written about why your demographic behaves like that. Why you personally do it only you know for certain but it's likely fear related - fear that your knowledge and "authority" is minimal, fear that the whole basis of your Ozbargain persona will crumble, and fear that your ignorant beliefs are based on blind ideology.
I've read more legitimate papers
So post one… just one will be a good start. Why is this so difficult for you to do? What are you hiding from?
It's not diffcult at all, I've done it numerous times on Ozbargain, and on more appropriate forums where adults without attitudinal, comprehension and ideological problems discuss issues. I've already told you more than once that spoonfeeding is for little kids and that you need to learn how to use internet searches with an open and skeptical mind, AND that you also need to verify the credibility of the sources you quote, AND that there is a plethora of garbage science, pseudo-science and complete tosh to beware of. That ought to be enough to get you going, but apparently there's something MUCH bigger holding you back ((see above).
BUT….being a kind soul I'm happy to grant you this one wish, exactly as you (nknowlingly and ironically requested. You might have to take the childlock off your internet to find it and read it but I'm sure you'll find it fascinating, as I did: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3187623/ Please do let me know what you think of it.
Thanks for proving my point.
Proof that a university education obviously doesn't automatically grant anyone wisdom, or mental acuity. Your kiddie babble is quiote amusing, rather ironic for someone who whinged about a lack of definition and precision don't you think?
By the way, how's your search for the definition of global warming going? Hopefully better than your still outstanding homework on the relationship between greenhouse gases and temperatures on this planet.
although I'll freely admit that a lot of the complex science is well beyond my comprehension level
It's not actual [sic] that complex at all. All you need to do is be willing to interrogate some of the information you are being fed to see if it matches real world observations. If it doesn't then it is not reliable.
My apologies. I forgot for a moment that in your mind you're a climate oracle with an uncontrollable superiority complex. Clearly you're a lot smarter than your opinions on this website suggest, and you really do know more about climate science than the combined world intellect - an intellect which has collaborstively and separately published data, analysis and modelling publicly and been under fierce interrogation for decades.
To my inexpert eye there are so many holes in your statement about interrogation and reliability of information that it's hard to know where to begin. But I will.
First up, you need to understand the difference between data, analysis, and information. We'll ignore knowledge for the moment, because you clearly believe (critically important word in your case) that your knowledge (and authority - roflmao) trumps that of the combined worldwide scientific community engaged in collecting and analysing climate/temperature data. Given your scientific naivety it's entirely understandable that you struggle with the difference between those terms, just as you do with the obvious differences between reliable, authoritative (that word again) information, pseudo-science, and opinion pieces.
Next up you need to specify what "real world observations" you're referring to and, in your case, why you're happy to accept their accuracy while ignoring other data which doesn’t suit your beliefs. Then you need to clearly set out why your expertise and vast experience leads you to think that either the data, the analysis or the information is - as you suggest - "unreliable". Even at your beginner level you should realise that "matching real world observations" with published information is just a tiny part of the picture. You also need to understand YOUR limitations and not believe that your opinion is as valid as the next person's, let alone that of actual experts, in what is - despite your ignorant comment to the contrary - one of the most highly complex sciences humans have ever embraced.
Given your self-aggrandizement above I'm sure you're about to release some peer-reviewed, ground-breaking observations and analysis (as you - cough - know from your scientific studies and your vast experience with statistics, data without context and analysis is just, well, data) which no organisation or scientist on the planet has yet discovered. And, you will of course be publishing your (Nobel Prize worthy) eureka moment in a respected journal where your name, qualifications, expertise and reputation will be under intense scrutiny. I’m sure we’re all salivating at the prospect of reading about your amazing "matching" process, a process which apparently completely disproves anthropogenic global warming.
A word to the wise though. I sincerely hope you get someone capable of writing basic English to help you out. On second thoughts perhaps not, because evidence here strongly suggests that aspect of your opinion writing is a VERY reliable hint to readers of what they might expect from your "science" and "logic", so maybe it's best left as is.
But hey, we both know I’m having a lend and that in reality credible scientific publication is well beyond your capability so I'll give you another simple challenge on this anonymous deals website. I'll set aside for now your failure to show you have any understanding of the relationship between greenhouses gases and (rising, in this case) temperatures. We can revisit that later when you've passed the first chapter test in Global Warming For Dummies
The challenge should be very simple for you given your claims about matching observations and “information” above.
Here it is: Which real world observations don’t match my “information”, and WHY? I’ve already explained that my information sources are broad so I’ll help you out by restricting my challenge to just one - any, and I mean any IPCC Report of your choosing.
Next up you need to specify what "real world observations" you're referring to
Have you already forgotten the thread you are replying to? Go back and read it again right at the very top, it's all there in black and white. Wake me up when you've worked it out
We can revisit that later when you've passed the first chapter test in Global Warming For Dummies
Still can't work out the difference between science and media… This is comedy.
I love how you use so many words to say so little. It's a tell for people who are out of their depth…
Have you already forgotten the thread you are replying to? Go back and read it again right at the very top, it's all there in black and white. Wake me up when you've worked it out
You're well beyond waking up unfortunately. Again a common trait of your demographic, although I suspect you're in the 100th percentile.
Nothing is "there in black and white" other than your usual beating around the bush, which as most know is part of your demographic's modus operandi. Or pehaps we can add that phrase to the list of terms you attempt to use but don't understand. No, it's far more likely to be just more puerile deflection.
Deja vu, but what are you afraid of - apart from putting you total ignorance of climate change/science, and lack of even average acumen on public display yet again? Another newsflash - you've already done that, so what else is there to lose? Reputation? Can't be, this is an anymous site and your reputation for inanity is already well established.
I love how you use so many words to say so little. It's a tell for people who are out of their depth.
Seriously, that's your best shot? Done with the chlidish cherry picking of quotes already? Your fear of words and inability to use them needs no explanation but I'm intrigued. Is that your specific affliction or just a symptom of your fear of knowledge?
Did I previously suggest that you're among the bottom dwellers of deniers I've encountered? Quite an acheivement I can assure you - I've come across some incredibly obtuse people. Good news: I take it back. Bad news: I've realised that you're more representative of a statistical outlier, and we all know what that means. Don't we? More good news though - you are still statistically part of the same 5-8% demographic. Too cryptic? Enjoy searching.
Good job of ignoring your homework btw. Not too difficult is it? Perhaps a visit to a local primary school will help get you started on both the greenhouse "problem"and definitions of global warming.
I've already mentioned why you don't answer questions - exactly the same reasons you can't be specific about data, let alone what that data indicates. Can't blame you. It's one thing having your childish waffle mocked, entirely another having your ignorance explicitly exposed.
Did you enjoy that paper I linked? Here's a paper of a different colour (another term you might want to look up, then learn how to use). Doubt you'll enjoy it as much: https://www.royalsoc.org.au/images/pdf/journal/150-2-Cook.pd…
Nothing is "there in black and white"
It actually is, right here:
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/14868681/redir
All you had to do was scroll up. Imagine being you right now…
@1st-Amendment: What, you've stopped quoting as well as cherry picking? Couldn't find anything "black and white"? You need to get more inventive.
It actually is, right here:……………
Actually it isn't, right anywhere.
I'm not sure why you get such a kick out of such puerile commenting but two can play that kindy game. I've seen enough of your dribble to know what to expect.
If I scrolled up and re-read your waffle I'd find nothing new, and nothing but ignorance and intentionally blurred, uninformed opinion.
No comments on the papers I linked? Too scared to check? Ever think that your comment technique is so obvious and consistently juvenile that duping you was a lay down misere?
No answer on greenhouse or what global warming is and how it's determined by people with actual knowledge and expertise?
To help you understand what's going on these are what is known as 'rhetorical questions' and the language device is known as 'satire'.
Actually it isn't,
Lol, Awesome rebuttal, this is the what passes for science to the climate cult. 'Is not'. 'Is too'!
No comments on the papers I linked?
You are yet to link any that is relevant to the topic. You posted an irrelevant summary of BOM reports, an irrelevant ABC opinion piece, an irrelevant children's book, then a complete brain fart from John Cook. Which one of those do you believe gives a scientific explanation for the OP's observation that "Melbourne is experiencing global cooling for the past several years"?
You see this is the problem you are failing to grasp. You claim to be on the side of science yet you cannot construct a simple rational argument. You have no idea how science actually works and think that repeatedly yelling how right you are somehow makes you right.
You've been at this for a month now, most people would be so embarrassed they would give up, but here you are, the typical climate cultist, chanting slogans and offering opinions but never ever DEMONSTRATING any logic. This is because the climate cult has no idea what real science it, it simply parrots slogans it hears on the ABC or the Guardian just as you have done repeatedly here. You think reading newspapers is science but no amount of telling us how right you are makes you right. That is as anti-science as you can get. Thank you for demonstrating this so beautifully. It's been fun to watch you struggle with this but it really is getting boring now…
@1st-Amendment: I did precisely as you asked in the context of the discussion. Let me remind you -
I've read more legitimate papers than you've had hot dinners
So post one… just one will be a good start. Why is this so difficult for you to do? What are you hiding from?
Specificity's not your strong point eh? Ironic - but not even vaguely surprising given your history of avoiding detail due to your fear of being exposed - that you'd try to make a point about specificity then fall into a very simple trap I set. Remember this doozy? "So let me help you out here again. When I did my Physics degree, the very first you must do is define what it is precisely you are asking." I gave you more than one clue but even then that steel trap of yours didn't twig. Time to clear the cache of that denier bs.
Btw, both those papers were very interesting from a science perspective, especially the one about the physiology of magpie calls. Did you enjoy it?
So what have we learnt/confirmed from your comments since you dipped your toe into a subject you know next to nothing about?
In the now deleted comment you may have already seen I had a very long list (which in reality could have extended off this page) but in the washup they are probably better summarised with this one observation: Ideology and science ought to be poles apart. That blind ideology prevents people from educating themsleves on the basics of climate science and anthropogenic climate change is a travesty.
I did precisely as you asked in the context of the discussion
So link to your response that answers the question:
Which one of your links do you believe gives a scientific explanation for the OP's observation that "Melbourne is experiencing global cooling for the past several years"?
And for bonus points see if you can answer the question without all the emotional hysteria. This really exposes your immaturity if you cannot provide some simple data without having a meltdown each time…
@1st-Amendment: Did you once say something about burden of proof without having even the vaguest notion of what it actually means? Right back at ya DK.
How many times do you need to be told - do your homework, after you've changed the bib of course.
I suspect most people didn't take the quoted comment literally although after his second comment about Flannery it may well have been a true reflection of his (?) climate ignorance. Not enough evidence either way at this point. Being the patient person I am (/s), I am nevertheless happy to provide some very elementary guides to those with the same limited acuity and knowledge you've displayed so far.
For starters, as anyone with even secondary school climate knowledge could probably tell you, local weather/climate isn't GLOBAL. Had you consulted the GLOBAL heat maps which I referred to above (99.9% of web users could pull them up in under 60 seconds) you'd have seen simple pictorials of global heat data. As you should know those maps don't show uniform heat. Given your massive climate IQ you wouldn't have expected otherwise, AND you'd know why.
But even more basic is the fact that your question clearly shows (yet again) that you don't understand fundamentally what global warming is, how science determines that global surface temperatures continue to trend upwards (there's a clue in that word), and why scientific consensus says that the primary cause is anthropogenic greenhouse (having examined the myriad other factors which influence global surface temperatures).
As I've said many time already if you had any real interest you'd have long ago learnt the basics and taken some time to read and absorb credible expert commentary and analysis, if not the highly complex (simple for you supposedly) papers on which they're based. We MAY have been having a totally different argument then, but based on your Ozbargain commentary style I'd lay long odds about it. Even IF you had a genuine change of heart I'd still be telling you to do your own research, although I may have given you some starting points commensurate with your current knowledge level.
I'm repeating myself, but I'm sure you're well aware that there are enough scientifically credible websites with climate science papers, graphs, data, analysis AND discussion on (supposedly) contentious points to keep you busy for a decade. Alternatively you could simply pull up any of the IPCC summary reports for an overview of the scientific consensus. If you're going to engage in moderately serious discussion on the topic that would be normal behaviour. So, again, the question for you to resolve is why you don't avail yourself of the many tools freely available. If nothing else it might give you a tiny bit of credibility among the nescient when you next dip yout toes.
Your homework is long overdue so I'll presume it's never coming but you could still earn a few brownie points by at least pretending to behave like your university (should have) trained you.
@1st-Amendment: Out of interest, how long do you think we can keep this "discussion" going? If you're looking to break an Ozbargain record I'm up for it.
Actually it isn't,
Lol, Awesome rebuttal, this is the what passes for science to the climate cult. 'Is not'. 'Is too'!
Missed the mockery did you? Didn't recognise your own style being applied? Did it annoy you?
The irony of you complaining about what was an intentionally childish retort is delicious. I clearly overestimated your self-awareness and thinking ability.
Missed the mockery did you?
No, I missed any part of you long-winded month-long emotional rant where you claim to be on the side of science yet fail to produce any.
This post is yet another example in a very long demonstration. Each post just adds more weight to my claim
If you want to be the voice of reason you need to learn how to separate logic from emotion, something you are still clearly struggling with. 😁
@1st-Amendment: I've missed you and was wondering when you'd dip your toe again. I'm always interested in what goes on in Bizzaro world, although as a peripheral pawn you're hardly representative. Had a quick look at your history to see if you'd abandoned me but only saw a post on the Trump deal. You really are profoundly ignorant aren't you? Like most of your cohort, the cause involves a combination of factors but certainly your reliance on the IDF (idiot drip [sic] feed) from clearly tainted sources is significant. In this case that source is your MAGA extremist "mates". Completely oblivious to even headline news about the dropped USA border agreement? No surprise there but your ideologically constricted acuity didn't even allow you to work out why the MAGA advisors got their Republican House sycophants to drop the Bipartisan National Security Agreement - which was developed largely by Republican lawmakers - AFTER it had been painstakingly worked through and the White House (reps) had made major concessions, concessions which upset quite a few Democrat lawmakers.
But back to the original topic. Still can't construct an answer regarding the relationship between greenhouse and climate? Seconday school simplicity will suffice if it helps. Any progress on understanding global climate, or how global temperatures are determined? I'm leaving out a lot of the more "complex" aspects - they aren't complex, even for a non-expert such as myself, but in the context of your floundering here it's a not unreasonable descriptor - around global temperatures but if you look back I've given you a hint or two. Even highlighted one iirc, AND mentioned some of the acronyms which might help you find appropriate graphics. Graphics which are corroborated by multiple independent sources and which, in someone with a real interest and an open mind, would lead to further personal investigation. You taking up that hint would be sign of baby step progress, but it appears even that's beyond you, and we both know why don't we?
Each post just adds more weight to my claim
Which claim in particular? That tens of thousands of experts with more than 400,000 years (my conservative approximation) of relevant knowledge and experience are wrong? That we should accept that your childish, self-inflicted ignorance has more weight than years of data, knowledge and expert analysis, because after we're all under the influence of "authority fallacy" (yet another term you thought you'd throw out without knowing what it meant - look it up and learn) ? That even your occasional cherry picking of a miniscule part of that science ('hypocrisy' much?) has been dealt with years ago? Woops, that's not your claim, it's common knowledge.
I've missed you and was wondering when you'd dip your toe again.
Emotion…
I'm always interested in what goes on
Emotion…
Had a quick look at your history
Emotion…
You really are profoundly ignorant
Emotion…
In this case that source is
Emotion…
MAGA
Emotion…
Republican House sycophants
Emotion…
Still can't construct an answer regarding the relationship between greenhouse and climate?
Now go back and read the thread to see why I'm laughing right now… Claim, burden, proof. If you want to be the holy defender of sCiEnCe you have to at least understand the basics… something you are yet to demonstrate in many, may attempts.
Which claim in particular?
Lol, you've forgotten your own argument already? You claimed right at the very top of the thread, which I've already pointed out multiple times but you run off in such a huff to tell me how you feel that you can't focus on the actual argument. This is what emotion does when you let it control you, it prevents the rational side of the brain from functioning. Science is rationality, cults are emotion. Your continued emotional outbursts only demonstrate my argument that you are in the cult.
But, if you love science so much, how about trying to do some rather than the continuous brain farts?
OP claimed that "Melbourne is experiencing global cooling for the past several years"
You posted a link to a media website (which in case you are unaware is NOT how science works) where some guy guesses at what he thinks ''might have', 'may be', 'could potentially'… have happened to cause this. This also is not science, it is opinion. Seeing the pattern now?
My response called out this typical media BS out and you then had a month-long tantrum about it, then started just spraying the wall with any crazy idea that popped into your head in the lamest ever attempt to deflect from the argument, because you didn't like the fact that I called out your media opinion as not actually science.
This is why this is a cult. Because your exchange is 100% an emotional response. If you love science so much then demonstrate it. Less talk, more walk.
Produce a rational argument as to why Melbourne has been cooler 'for the past several years'. Or is you disagree with OP's claim give some evidence to support that. You have provided neither so far.
The irony of your further contributions, which is clearly lost on you, is that you have simultaneously argued that climate is controlled by humans, but then also controlled by a volcano. So which is it? And if it's both the what is the specific equation that explains this ratio? You see this is how science actually works. Specific equations and formulas, not vague hand wavy media headlines. And if you can't give a specific ratio for nature vs human climate influence, how can you possibly 'solve' it? Pray to the sky gods? Pray to the holy EV and solar panel? That isn't science, that is religion
Just think about this before running off on another emotional rant. If the climate can so easily be influenced by a small volcano AS YOU CLAIM, then what difference does human activity make? (Specifically with supporting data). According to the Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program https://volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?question=eruptionsbyyea… (see real science, with real data, not media headlines) there were 72 eruptions last year, with similar numbers every year. If volcanoes have such a huge influence in climate AS YOU CLAIMED, then how can anything humans do control this? We don't need the emotional outburst, just send some actual science to support whatever opinion you have, just like I did here. That is how we do science.
You've had 28 attempts at this already (see, I used actual, verifiable/falsifiable numbers not guesses, because that is how science works), some of which you had to delete because your emotions clearly got the better of you. If your next post contains the same emotional gibberish then I'll leave you to it.
One of the strongest indicators that you are in a cult is you inability to engage in rational argument. Let's see if you prove my point yet again.
@1st-Amendment: Back to your hackneyed techniques already? Haven't yet worked out they don't bother or deter me? I accepted your addiction to puerile quoting (and obfuscation) long ago, well before you gave us another of your cerebral gems on this deal. As I've suggested many times, I'm beyond being surprised by your nescience, although just when I think your acuity has bottomed out you invariably plumb new depths.
That you think my mocking is "emotional" or that you'd grasp at any straw because fundamentally you haven't got past kindergarten level climate knowledge and have yet to grasp the basics of argument/discussion, is quite as expected.
Allow me to disabuse you of two more of your delusions and kill two birds with one stone.
Firstly, I'm not emotonally invested in your ignorance at all. That's something for you to deal with. I ridicule your comments because they deserve it and because you haven't got the maturity, capability or capacity to make even a basic case for your opinion on climate change - which started with waffling "cult" labels and hasn't progressed a millimetre since. Deja vu - nor do you have the infinitessimally small amount of fortitude required to be specific about your issues with climate science and its decades of public analysis. Again we both know why that is. I've seen it many times before, just as I've seen what you apparently believe is rational argument on this website. News flash - your "argument" (and I use that term very loosely in your case) technique is persistently inane and juvenile, even when you have a tiny bit of knowledge about the topic you've weighed in on. Your latest faux-pas about Trump and USA border management is just one of myriad examples of your opinionated ignorance.
On this website your technique is to 'wear them down' with childish inanities, apparently in the belief that you're winning some mythical victory which shores up your right wing ideological opinions. Most on Ozbargain eventually realise what they're dealing with and move on - probably mindful of the old adage about arguing with fools. In this deal you've found yourself stuck with someone who, while relatively ignorant compared to the experts whose work you denigrate, clearly knows far more than you ever will about climate change science AND can easily tear apart what in your case masquerades as 'facts' , knowledge and understanding. Your timidity when asked for specifics and detail is well founded - and typical of the demographic as already discussed.
The second "bird" to kill is your spectacularly witless idea that I'm trying to be a 'voice of reason', although I can appreciate why you might think that. Phone a friend and ask why. Poetic irony.
Your latest non-sequitur that warming is either human induced or volcanic - an either/or proposition only a dunce would suggest - demonstrates three things we've previously covered: (1) your kiddie (mis)understanding of elementary logic; (2) your complete lack of knowledge of what can and does affect LOCAL weather and climate; and (3) your lack of awareness of the numerous factors climate scientists have analysed in depth in order to understand and quantify global temperature forcing effects.
I've previously mentioned albedo (you'll have to search why that's particularly relevant here for yourself) and although you appear to dwell under a mushroom you should also be aware of a thing called solar irradiance. Awareness sometimes graduates into knowledge - with obvious exceptions - therefore for homework, define solar irradiance, and describe briefly how it works and what recent irridiance trends are showing. For brownie points, link a recent, very topical, news story involving sun screens.
There's a particularly appropriate irony associated with your ignorance of climate science, the link which first got your knickers in a twist, and the complexities of climate prognostication. There was/is an opening any denier would salivate over, but few will uncover. Too cryptic or you? I'd explain but it would only reinforce your prejudices and I've already given you a very solid clue.
If volcanoes have such a huge influence in climate AS YOU CLAIMED,
Feel free to provide evidence for that straw man at any time in the next year or so. To put it succinctly, I've never said that, although had I done so I would have been absolutely correct, as is already well established by climate science research. Most climate deniers know that volcanoes are significant contributors to climate forcings, in fact it's one of the most commonly misused denier explanations for warming (when in fact they are usually a cooling factor as you - cough - know). Did you not study the denier handbook closely enough? Your confusion about the linked news article and how it fits with the "OP's" throwaway line about Melb temepratures is understandable given your scientific naivety, yet unforgivable given the enormous amount of easily-found scientific analysis there is on the topic. Here's just one: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcan… . And here's a detailed technical paper on the topic IF you're up to it: https://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/ROG2000.pdf. Note the citings.
Back to your hackneyed techniques already?
It's called logic. One day you'll work out what that is…
well before you gave us another of your cerebral gems on this deal.
Emotion…
I'm beyond being surprised by your nescience
Emotion…
Allow me to disabuse you of two more of your delusions
Emotion…
Firstly, I'm not emotonally invested in your ignorance at all
Read what you just wrote lol…
etc etc….
Feel free to provide evidence for that straw man at any time in the next year or so
Lol… https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/14868782/redir
Looks like we're are done. When you don't even remember you're own argument, and every response consists of immature emotional outpouring then there is no point continuing.
Enjoy chanting slogans at the sky gods kiddo. Wake me when wE oNlY hAvE 10 yEaRs tO sAvE tHe pLaNet…. oh wait that was 40 years ago lol….
@1st-Amendment: Logic? I have no doubt whatsoever that it's your version of 'logic', which in the real adult world doesn't even get to the secondary school starting gate.
Feel free to provide evidence for that straw man at any time in the next year or so
Lol… https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/14868782/redir
That's your response? A link to another link which I made no comment on? Did I ever mention the word puerile, or twaddle? Question - is the redirection link an example of your "logic" or your best attempt at evidence-based argument? Either way even you should be able to see why it fails, but since you likely can't I'll help you out in VERY easily understood sentences.
(1) A random Ozbargainer posted a throw away line, probably in jest, about Melb's global [sic] cooling (note that previous word, because I'll be referencing it again later).
(2) I posted a link - without comment - to an article which showed just ONE of many influences over local weather and climate - an influence you were completely oblivious to and even now don't understand.
(3) You subsequently ignorantly and amusingly believed that my support for the scientific consensus on the primary cause of global warming - human greenhouse - was at odds with the linked article, again completely oblivious to the fact that volcanic eruptions are generally negative feedback agents, ie despite the CO2 emitted the overall effect is that of COOLING. Seeing the obvious link to what mlburnian posted yet?
(4) Your ignorance was so profound that you didn't know that the two things are entirely compatible, even though I'd made no statement about the global effect of volcanoes either way.
In short, you fabricated a straw man thinking it exposed some hypocrisy or inconsistency when the complete opposite was true. Moral - if you're going to construct and attribute false argument positions to others, at least get a basic understanding of the subject beforehand.
That you could find a Smithsonian article on volcanoes which simply confirms what climate scientists have known for decades yet still not understand the role they play in climate is a testament to your deeply ingrained climate change science nescience. Had you bothered to do a 10 minute search you'd have known that climate scientists have long since looked at volcanic eruptions and determined that their effect on climate WARMING was insignificant. Their effects on LOCAL weather and climate are also well documented. IF you'd bothered to do half an hour's research you possibly might not have made such a complete fool of yourself.
By the way, so you don't make the same error again you might want to learn what primary and secondary data sources are. There's a clue on the Smithsonian site you linked: Distributed by Smithsonian Institution, compiled by Venzke, E. You should understand what the highlighted words mean although I very much doubt it.
Postscript: now that you'v learnt a tiny bit about volcanoes and climate would you care to enlighten us about solar irradiance trends? Perhaps you could even attempt to explain what climate scientists can't reagarding the global dimming phenomenon despite their understanding of solar cycles.
No they aren't talking about the rise of anti-sciene/knowledge right wingers but about reduced solar irradiance -
I have no doubt whatsoever that it's your version of 'logic', which in the real adult world doesn't even get to the secondary school starting gate.
Emotion….
QED
@1st-Amendment: That's your only comment? Nothing at all about your "little error" (or howler as others know it)? You know, the one where you constructed your straw man and confused warming and cooling because you know nothing about climate forcings? My simple 4 line dissection above too complex for you?
It was inevitable that you'd simultaneously demonstrate your nescience, well below average acuity and lack of attention to detail by linking a secondary data source which proved beyond any doubt that you hadn't got to first base on global warming. That was already painfully obvious for anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the topic, but good of you to confrm it for the record nevertheless. I killed two birds with one stone, you thought you'd kill three presumably? Did I previously mention poetic irony? Look it up some time.
Dunning-Kruger is often used as an epithet these days but is fast approaching Godwin's law so the effect is diminished. That said, if anyone is looking for an exemplar I'm happy to recommend your latest blunder.
What was it you said above?
Personally I can't imagine it, although I've seen occasional examples on social media that suggest you're not on your pat.
An obvious corollary is: Imagine believing that your knowledge trumps that of tens of thousands of acknowledged experts.
A further corollary to that is: Imagine having that belief despite not having availed yourself of even a tiny part of the wealth of data, analysis and expert summary all freely available to the public.
Again I can't imagine, but as the USA is currently demonstrating we should never underestimate the human capacity for ideolological inanity and duplicity.
QED
Hahaha bit warmer up here in NSW.
As a QUEENSLANDERRRRRRR I say this heat and humidity can f right off.
Everything’s gonna be mouldy again :(
Dreading it tbh. Bought a few damprid pots from Bunnings to try and keep it all in check… but I’m still finding mouldy things even now from the last big humidity even we had.
@Jimothy Wongingtons: Damn. I’ve been running the aircons partly to keep cool and partly for the drying. Helps we’ve got solar so its not costing us (just some lost FIT) during the day.
Does Dan Murphys price beat Amazon? Anyone tried before? Especially with a voucher in this case
$71 wasted imho. But my opinion doesn't seem to be the popular one
Hard to go back to these after having James Squire's version
Squires is superior. But tingletop/meggsy leave Squires for dead
![[Prime] Brookvale Union Alcoholic Ginger Beer Case (24 Pack 330ml Cans) $70.99 Delivered @ CUB via Amazon AU](https://files.ozbargain.com.au/n/22/827322.jpg?h=e8317da3)
Not bad price
Great drop
Drink responsibly